UC SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY 
 
 D 0009823915
 
 
 K^f^ 
 
 < 
 
 ^fH» i| /^
 
 THE BRITISH ACADEMY 
 
 Israel's Settlement in Canaan 
 
 The Biblical Tradition and 
 
 its Historical Background 
 
 By 
 
 The Rev. C. F. Burney, D.Litt. 
 
 Oriel Professor of the Interpretation of Holy Scripture 
 
 in tlie University of Oxford 
 
 Fellow of St. John's College, Oxford 
 
 Canon of Rochester 
 
 The Schiveich Lectures 
 
 1917 
 
 SECOND EDITION 
 
 London 
 
 Published for the British Academy 
 
 By Humphrey Milford, Oxford University Press 
 
 Amen Corner, E.G. 
 
 1919
 
 PRt^fTEl> AT OXrOKD, ENGLAND 
 
 BY FREDEFICK HALL 
 
 PRINTER XO THE UKIVERSITY
 
 TO 
 
 THE EEV. CHARLES JAMES BALL, D.Litt. 
 
 IN AFFECTIONATE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT 
 
 OF MUCH INSTRUCTION AND INSPIRATION 
 
 IN BIBLICAL STUDIES
 
 PREFACE 
 
 When I was honoured by the President and Council of the 
 British Academy with an invitation to deliver the Schweich 
 Lectures of 1917, the suggestion was made that I should choose 
 some subject in connexion with the commentary on the Book of 
 Judges on which I have been engaged for some years. The subject 
 which I chose, though not falling within the period of the Judges 
 of Israel as defined by the limits of the Book of Judges, is one 
 which is brought prominently forward by the introductory section 
 to the book, ch. i. 1-ii. 5, which raises immediately the question of 
 the relation of the summary which it gives of the tribal settlement 
 in Canaan to the fuller and in many respects discrepant account of 
 that settlement which we find in the Book of Joshua. Even apart 
 from this preface to the Book of Judges, the narratives dealing 
 with the various Israelite leaders, which form the material of the 
 book as a whole, picture (at any rate in the old sources themselves 
 as contrasted with the editorial framework) so slight a cohesion 
 among the various tribal units of Israel, and their holding of so 
 precarious a footing in Canaan in the midst of alien races, that the 
 question presses itself upon the student whether the theory of 
 a closely organized body of twelve tribes, effecting under a single 
 leader a complete subjugation of the greater part of Canaan — i.e. 
 the theory of the Book of Joshua in its present form — is at all 
 consistent with such a state of affairs in the period immediately 
 subsequent to the settlement. I welcomed the opportunity, there- 
 fore, of examining, as systematically as I was able to do within the 
 brief compass of three lectures, a subject the right understanding 
 of which forms a necessary preliminary to the study of the period 
 of the Judges, and of bringing together and supplementing the
 
 \i PREFACE 
 
 conclusions at which I had arrived in my more or less isolated 
 discussions of particular points as they arose in the course of 
 preparation of my commentary. Fortunately, my larger work is 
 completed, and would ere now have seen the light had it not been 
 for the great diflSculties connected with publication at the present 
 time ; and I have utilized material embodied in it for many of the 
 questions which call for discussion in the present lectures. I have 
 cited it throughout as Burney, Judges, and have been able for the 
 most part to give reference to the pages in which the points in 
 question receive fuller discussion. Lecture III is based in the 
 main upon work which I have embodied in the introduction to 
 the commentary (§ 6), which will be found there to stand in a 
 fuller and more detailed historical setting of events in Western 
 Asia so far as they have a bearing on the contemporary history of 
 Canaan ; and I have also drawn largely on the book in stating my 
 views as to the conquest of the Negeb by a northward advance 
 from Kadesh-Barnea (pp. 28 ff. ; cf. Judges, pp. 44 ff.), and as to 
 the fortunes of the tribe of Levi (pp. 44 ff. ; cf. Judges, pp. 436 ff.). 
 The reader of these lectures who expects to find a continuous 
 narrative of Israel's settlement in Canaan must inevitably be 
 disappointed by the scantiness of the material, especially upon the 
 archaeological side, and the fragmentary character of such con- 
 clusions as can be drawn with reasonable safety. The weaving of 
 a fuller and more connected narrative might have been accom- 
 plished by paying less strict regard to the scientific method and 
 allowing more free play to the imagination ; but a real advance in 
 historical knowledge can only be secured by frankly facing the 
 facts that the sources of information at our disposal are inadequate 
 for the construction of such a connected scheme, and that we can 
 only advance by slow degrees in our endeavour to ascertain the 
 truth. Our best hope for any further gain in knowledge of 
 Israel's early history- lies in fresh archaeological discovery ; and if, 
 as we trust, the near future is to witness a new regime in Palestine, 
 and the opening up of larger facilities for scientific excavation, the 
 munificent provision of the Schweich Fund, founded in memory of 
 the late Mr. Leopold Schweich, of Paris, for the furtherance of
 
 PREFACE vii 
 
 such excavation will prove of unique value, and the wisdom in 
 placing this object in the forefront of the scheme may receive 
 abundant justification. 
 
 The lectures are published in the form in which they were given ; 
 though the time-limitation made it necessary to omit considerable 
 portions in delivery. 
 
 C. F. B. 
 
 March, 1918.
 
 CONTENTS 
 
 Symbols employed to denote the Biblical Sources . . . p. xi 
 
 LECTURE I 
 
 Introduction. Choice of subject. An endeavour to reach historical results 
 through evidence of literary and historical criticism combined with evidence of 
 archaeology. Period chosen makes a special call for historical investigation. 
 Position taken by lecturer as to historical value of Biblical sources for period 
 (pp. 1-11). 
 
 The Biblical Tradition examined. Survey of conquest of Canaan as related in 
 Book of Joshua. Southern campaign as related in the old narratives JE. 
 Deuteronomic redactor of these narratives (R°) increases results of successes, 
 making them extend to conquest of all southern Canaan except Philistine plain. 
 Contrary evidence of Judges i. Northern confederation of Canaanites against 
 Israel. Magnitude of this northern campaign and its results again intensified 
 by Rd (pp. 11-16). 
 
 Judges i portion of old document of first importance for history of Israel's 
 settlement. Describes gradual and partial manner in which settlement was 
 effected. Due largely to efforts of individual tribes, who in most cases settled 
 down side by side with races which they failed to eradicate. Choice between 
 presentation of settlement as offered by this old document, and that offered by 
 R° in Joshua and by the Priestly author (P) of Joshua xiii. 15-xxi. 42 (account 
 of the division of the land by lot among the tribes) (pp. 16-26). 
 
 LECTURE II 
 
 The Biblical Tradition examined (continuation). Point in which Judges i 
 seems in present form to agree with conception of R° and P in Joshua. 
 Tribes seem to be pictured as starting from common point, and as having each 
 its special heritage predetermined by lot. Reasons for regarding this conception 
 as unhistorical. Two outstanding illustrations. (1) Judah and Simeon make 
 their settlement by advance from south, not from Jericho as pictured in Judges 
 i. 16, 17. (2) Migration of Manassite clans across Jordan from west to east 
 ascribed by old J narrative to Joshua's initiative, but really a movement which 
 took place at a later period (pp. 27-34). 
 
 What credence, then, can we attach to tradition of Israelite invasion of 
 conquest under Joshua 1 Joshua a genuinely historical figure, but probably 
 leader of the Joseph-tribes only. If this is so, tribes led out of Egypt by 
 Moses probably not the whole of Israel ; but certain elements which ultimately 
 formed part of the nation gained footing in Canaan independently of Moses and 
 Joshua, and at an earlier period. Sphere of our inquiry thus extended to 
 traditions of patriarchal age (pp. 34-7).
 
 X CONTENTS 
 
 Simeon and Levi, Genesis xxxiv and xlix. 5-7. Story not a reflection of 
 events in time of Judges, but prior to period when Joseph-tribes occupied 
 central Hill-country. Genesis xlviii. 22. Simeon in far south as sequel to 
 Genesis xxxiv. What became of Levi ? If this tribe followed fortunes of 
 Simeon, we expect to find it in far south on borders of Egypt. This hypothesis 
 would explain (1 ) connexion of Simeon and Levi with Joseph -tribes in Egypt 
 (Moses a Levite) ; (2) identification of main part of Levi with fortunes of 
 Judah in south. Remaining Leah-tribes, Reuben, Issachar, Zebulun. Eai'liest 
 positions of Leah-tribes in Canaan. Handmaid- tribes. Tribal names of 
 Handmaid-tribes and full Israelite tribes contrasted (pp. 37-58). 
 
 LECTURE III 
 
 External evidence. Brief outline-sketch of history of Canaan from Hyksos 
 period, giving chronological presentation of all possible allusioiis to Israel in 
 external sources. Jacob-el a Hyksos chieftain before 1580 B. c. Jacob-el and 
 Joseph-el (?) place-names in Canaan c. 1479 B.C. 'Apuriu mentioned in 
 Egyptian documents from time of Thutmosi III onwards. Habiru pressing 
 into Syria-Palestine c. 1375 B. C. The Habiru question and its importance. 
 Detailed examination of proposed identification with Hebrews. Rival theories. 
 Name Asher occurs in western Galilee c. 1313 B.C. Mineptah defeats a people 
 called Israel in Canaan c. 1223 B.C. (pp. 59-82). 
 
 Conclusions. Decision as to approximate date of Exodus a necessary pre- 
 liminary before we can form working theory as to relation between Biblical 
 and archaeological data. Biblical evidence bearing on early migrations of 
 Israel's ancestors westward into Canaan. Period at which Israel (the Joseph- 
 tribes) most likely to have entered Egypt. Rival theories as to date of Exodus 
 (pp. 82-94). 
 
 Table of Dates p. 95 
 
 General Index p. 96 
 
 Index of Biblical References p. 102 
 
 MAPS 
 
 I. Western Asia in the Second Millennium B. c . 
 II. The Land of Canaan. To illustrate the sites named in the Lectures. 
 
 III. Earliest migration of ancestors of Israel (Abraham) into Canaan, dated, 
 
 according to Biblical tradition, about the time of Hammurabi (c. 
 2100 B.C.). A migration from S. Canaan into Egypt with the Hyksos 
 may be indicated by the tradition of Gen. xii. 10-20. Cf. pp. 78 f., 
 84 f., 89. 
 
 IV. Theory of the distribution of the Leah-tribes and Handmaid-tribes in 
 
 Canaan c. fifteenth century B.C., prior to the arrival of the Joseph- 
 tribe. Cf. pp. 37, 43 f., bOS., 85. 
 Y. Theory of the distribution of the tribes of Israel during the sojourn of the 
 Joseph-tribe in Egypt, c. fourteenth and fifteenth centuries B. c. Cf . 
 pp. 28 fi"., 34 ft'., 44 ft-., 87 ft". 
 VI. Final position of the tribes of Israel in Canaan.
 
 SYMBOLS EMPLOYED TO DENOTE THE BIBLICAL 
 
 SOURCES 
 
 M.T. The Massoretic Text, i.e. the Hebrew Textus Receptus as supplied with 
 vowels and accents by the Massoretes or conservators of tradition 
 (massord = 'tradition'). 
 
 E. The Elohistic narrative in the Hexateuch, so termed as exhibiting a 
 
 pi'eference for the use of the divine title Eldhhn, ' God '. This 
 narrative probably took shape as a written document not later than 
 the middle of the eighth century B.C. (the period of Amos and 
 Hosea), and emanates from the prophetic school of the Northern 
 Kingdom. It has, however, undergone considerable expansion in 
 places at the hands of a later prophetic writer or writers (usually 
 distinguished as E"), who worked under the influence of Hosea's 
 teaching. E* is probably not much (if at all) earlier than 700 B.C. 
 
 J. The Jehovistic (Yahwistic) narrative in the Hexateuch, so termed as 
 
 characterized by regular use of the divine name Jehovah or 
 Yahweh from the earliest narratives of Genesis onwards ; whereas E 
 avoids use of the name altogether until the narration of the Theophany 
 at Horeb, and from that point onwards uses it but sparingly alongside 
 of Elohtm. The date usually assigned to J as a continuous written 
 document is c. 850 B.C. ; and its composition appears to be due to 
 the prophetic school of the Kingdom of Judah. The material utilized 
 by J and E was probably in the main oi-al tradition of indefinite 
 antiquity, though there exist some few indications of the employment 
 of older written sources. 
 
 JE. The combined narrative of J and E— a symbol used when it is not 
 possible, or not necessary, to distinguish the sources. Combination 
 of the two prophetical sources was carried out by a redactor whose 
 symbol is R""^, probably in the earlier half of the seventh century B.C. 
 
 P. The Priestly document in the Pentateuch — the work of the legalistic 
 
 school of the latter part of the exile and later, though based on older 
 material. The same symbol (P) is usually employed to mark the 
 work of this school as embodied in the Book of Joshua, the most 
 important part of which is the description of the heritages of the 
 various tribes, xiii. 15-xxi. 42. 
 
 IC*. The Deuteronomic redactor of JE in the Book of Joshua. The work of 
 this editor was probably carried out not very long subsequently to 
 the promulgation of the Book of the Law (i.e. the nucleus of 
 Deuteronomy) in the eighteenth year of Josiah (621 B.C.). 
 
 R'^. See under JE.
 
 ISRAEL'S SETTLEME^T IN CANAAN 
 
 THE BIBLICAL TRADITION AND ITS HISTORICAL 
 BACKGROUND 
 
 LECTURE I 
 
 THE BIBLICAL TRADITION EXAMINED 
 
 The terms of the Trust under which I have been invited to 
 deliver these Lectures direct that ' the trust fund shall be devoted 
 to the furtherance of research in the archaeology, art, history, 
 languages, and literature of ancient civilization with reference to 
 Biblical study ' ; and it is further ordained that the Schweich 
 Lectures shall deal 'with some subject or subjects' coming within 
 the scope of these objects. It is therefore open to a lecturer to 
 concentrate his attention upon a single department of research 
 as thus defined, or to base his arguments and deductions upon 
 a synthesis of results obtained through research in two or more 
 of such departments. It is the second method which I propose to 
 adopt. My lectures will represent an endeavour to reach historical 
 results through the evidence of literary and historical criticism 
 of Old Testament documents combined with the evidence of 
 archaeology. The attempt has sometimes been made to set 
 Biblical archaeology over against Biblical literary and historical 
 criticism, and to represent the ' facts ' deduced from the former 
 as antagonistic to, or subversive of, the ' fancies ' of the latter. 
 This claim, unfair and unwarranted as it is in the main, does 
 serve to emphasize the truth that these two departments of 
 Biblical research cannot rightly be kept apart. Internal examina- 
 tion of the Old Testament writings cannot yield its full results 
 apart from application of the external evidence supplied by 
 archaeology ; nor, it may be added, can the results of archaeology 
 be profitably assimilated without a painstaking and critical examina- 
 tion of the historical documents upon which these external dis- 
 coveries are believed to shed new light. Our task, therefore, 
 
 B. B
 
 2 ISRAEL'S SETTLEMENT IN CANAAN 
 
 as students of Biblical history, is to endeavour to advance along 
 both these lines, keeping them, as far as may be, in close touch. 
 In each department we have to deal with a number of ascertained 
 fads — the facts revealed by critical examination of the Biblical 
 documents beins: no less concrete in character than those unearthed . 
 by the spade of the archaeologist : each of these series of facts 
 furnishes material for the elaboration of theories in explanation 
 of them — the one class of theory being in essential character 
 neither more nor less tentative than the other. The criterion for 
 theories of either class is one and the same, viz. whether they 
 are based, step by step, upon reliable inference, and accommodate 
 themselves satisfactorily to all relevant facts by which they may 
 be tested. 
 
 The period with which I have chosen to deal is one which makes 
 a special call for historical examination. Were we dealing with 
 the period of the Hebrew monarchies we should find ourselves 
 standing upon comparatively firm ground. The history embodied 
 in the Books of Kings is well attested as a whole both internally 
 and externally. It is true that, in the study of Kings as an his- 
 torical document, we are confronted by many considerable problems, 
 of which at present no adequate solution can be oSered. Still, 
 allowing all due weight for these, their efiect upon our general 
 grasp of the history is but small. Critical examination of the 
 documents embodied in the work has proved that their historical 
 value is high ; archaeology, coming to our aid with such external 
 information as is provided by the Assyrian annals, has enabled us 
 to check and corroborate. The same conclusion is true, to a lai'ge 
 extent, of the Books of Samuel — especially of 2 Samuel — upon 
 internal grounds. The main part of 2 Samuel consists of a single 
 document, contemporary, or nearly so, with the events which it 
 narrates, and of unique value as an extended historical record. 
 1 Samuel contains a double tradition with two somewhat variant 
 standpoints which call for some amount of adjustment. Yet no 
 one would dispute the historical character of the figures of Eli, 
 Samuel, and Saul ; and few would deny that we are able to gather 
 a reasonably clear historical conception of the main outlines of 
 their careers. When, however, we go back to the period imme- 
 diately preceding, which may be said to extend forward from the 
 invasion of Canaan by the tribes of Israel, and to cover their 
 gradual settlement in the land, the case is considerably difierent. 
 
 This may readily be seen if, for example, we compare the Biblical 
 chronology of the period with the Biblical chronology of Kings.
 
 THE BIBLICAL TRADITION EXAMINED 3 
 
 Assyrian chronology proves that the Biblical chronology of Kings, 
 though marked by a few apparently insoluble difficulties, is based 
 on the whole upon sound historical data.^ In contrast, the 
 
 ^ This fact cannot here be illustrated at length ; but it is worth while to 
 notice that, if we take certain dates fixed by Assyrian chronology for events 
 which have Biblical connexions, and measure the intervals from date to date 
 as given in the chronological scheme of Kings, the results tend on the whole 
 to vindicate the Biblical scheme. Thus we have, from Assyrian sources, the 
 following fixed points : 
 
 854 B. c. Ahab in alliance with Bir-idri (Benhadad 11) of Damascus against 
 Shalmaneser III at Karkar. 
 
 842 B. c. Jehu pays tribute to Shalmaneser III. 
 
 806, 803, 797 b. c. Adad-nirari IV makes campaigns against the west, and 
 receives tribute from Omri-land (i. e. Israel) among others. In one of these 
 campaigns he utterly defeats Mari' (Benhadad III), captures Damascus, and 
 receives unconditional submission. 
 
 782-745 B. c. A period of internal weakness in Assyria under Shalmaneser 
 IV, Asur-dan IV, Asur-nirari IV. 
 
 745 B. c. Tiglath-Pileser IV (Pul) revives the power of Assyria. 
 
 738 B. c. Tribute paid to Tiglath-Pileser by Menahem of Israel, 
 
 Assuming that the battle of Karkar took place in Ahab's last year, we have 
 (on the pre-dating system, i. e. the reckoning of the still unexpired portion of 
 a year in which a king came to the throne at his first reigning year) 854-853 
 B. c. for Ahaziah (reigned two years), 853-842 b. c. for Jehoram (reigned twelve 
 years), 842 b. c. accession of Jehu. That Jehu should have made himself a 
 vassal of the Assyrian king immediately upon his accession is highly probable. 
 Israel was at war with Hazael of Damascus (2 Kings ix. 15) and was probably 
 already in danger of being badly worsted (cf. 2 Kings x. 32, 38). In addition 
 to this, Jehu may well have stood in dread of a counter-revolution, and so 
 needed a powerful ally to hold his external and internal foes in check. 
 
 Taking 842 b. c. at the first year of Jehu, we may reckon fonvard to the 
 crippling of Damascus which enabled Jehoash of Israel to gain successes 
 against Benhadad III (2 Kings xiii. 22-25). This may have occurred on any of 
 the three dates 806, 803, 797 b. c, i. e. from the first year of Jehu to the capture 
 of Damascus may have been thirty-six, thirty-nine, or forty-five years. The 
 lengths given in Kings for the reigns of Jehu and Jehoahaz are twenty-eight and 
 seventeen years respectively, i. e. on the pre-dating system 27 and 16 = 43 years. 
 The accession of Jehoash would therefore fall forty-three years after 842 b. c, 
 i. e. 799 B. c, two years before the crippling of Damascus, if we take for this the 
 latest of the three possible dates. 
 
 If we take 799 b. c. for the accession of Jehoash, and he reigned sixteen 
 years, i. e. on the pre-dating system fifteen years, we have 784-744 b. c. for 
 Jeroboam II (reigned forty-one years), who gained such a series of successes 
 against the Aramaeans as enabled him to extend the northern limits of his 
 kingdom to the entering in of Hamath and to inaugurate a period of prosperity 
 for the kingdom of Israel. Jeroboam IPs reign was thus practically coincident 
 with the whole period during which Assyria was unable (through internal 
 weakness) to interfere in the affairs of the west. 
 
 After Jeroboam IPs death, 744 B. c, there followed Zechariah (six months), 
 Shallum (one month), Menahem (ten years), 743-734 B. c. Thus the Assyrian 
 
 B 2
 
 4 ISRAEL'S SETTLEMENT IN CANAAN 
 
 chronology of the earlier period, is characterized by the use of 
 round numbers, the figure 40 occurring with suspicious frequency. 
 Thus, forty years represents the period of the wilderness-wander- 
 ings, of the intervals during which ' the land had rest ' after the 
 victories of Othniel, Barak, and Gideon, of the oppression by the 
 Philistines, of the judgeship of Eli, and of the reigns of David and 
 Solomon. The peace which supervened after Ehud's success against 
 Moab is given as twice forty years, and Samson's judgeship as half 
 forty years. A very late addition to 1 Kings {ch. vi. 1) reckons 
 the period from the Exodus till the building of the Temple in 
 Solomon's fourth year as 480 years, i.e. 40x12. This suggests 
 at once that forty years may have been the conventional reckoning 
 of the length of a generation, and that twelve generations were 
 supposed to cover the period in question ; and this surmise receives 
 striking confirmation from the genealogy of Aaron and his suc- 
 cessors as given in 1 Chron. vi. 3-10, according to which twelve 
 names intervene between Eleazar. Aaron's son, and Azariah, who is 
 specified as ' he that exercised the priest's office in the house that 
 Solomon built in Jerusalem '. It needs no extended argument to 
 prove that such a system of reckoning is purely artificial. The 
 average length of a generation, i.e. the length of the period repre- 
 senting the age of a father at the birth of his first-born son, is 
 considerably less than forty years, especially in an Eastern country ; 
 nor are even periods of forty years ever known to recur with the 
 frequency which is represented in the chronology of Joshua, Judges, 
 and Samuel. Closer examination of this curious scheme of chro- 
 nology suggests that, late and artificial as it must be deemed in 
 its earliest form, it has been subsequently modified by various 
 influences — notably through the attempt to raise the number of 
 the Judges within the Book of Judges to twelve by the insertion 
 of the ' minor ' Judges, thus making them correspond as far as 
 possible to the twelve tribes of Israel ; but the probability is that, 
 in its original form, the twelve generations were reckoned by 
 assigning forty years each to the twelve leaders of Israel between 
 the Exodus and Solomon who are specifically represented as divinely 
 
 date for Menaliems tribute to Tiglath-Pileser IV, 738 B.C., falls well within 
 his reign according to the Biblical data. 
 
 It is true that later on we meet with various discrepancies between the 
 Biblical and Assyrian data ; but these do not invalidate the fact that the 
 calculations noticed above must be based on sound chronological inf a-mation. 
 There is thus all the difference in the world between the Biblical chronology 
 of the monarchic period, and the Biblical chronology of the pre-monarchic 
 period with its recurrent round periods of forty years.
 
 THE BIBLICAL TRADITION EXAMINED 5 
 
 appointed, viz. (1) Moses, (2) Joshua, (3) Othniel, (4) Ehud, (5) 
 Barak, (6) Gideon, (7) Jephthah, (8) Samson, (9) Eli, (10) Samuel, 
 (11) Saul, (12) David.i 
 
 If this is so, however, we immediately find ourselves confronted 
 by a further historical difficulty. Such a scheme of chronology, 
 in order to ' work ', must inevitably presuppose that the stated 
 periods were successive, without. any overlapping. The Israelite 
 leaders of whom we are speaking must be regarded as exercising 
 authority over Israel as a tvhole ; and the chronological scheme is 
 therefore bound up with the theory that Israel as a whole formed 
 a unity of twelve tribes from the period of the Exodus and onward. 
 This is clearly the theory of the editorial parts of the Book of 
 Judges as regards the authority exercised by the Judges ; yet it 
 is no less clear that the old narratives themselves picture a large 
 amount of disorganization among the tribes, and rightly regard 
 the Judges as merely local leaders, not successive rulers of all 
 Israel. 
 
 This single point — the question of chronology — may suffice to 
 illustrate the difference between our sources of information bearing 
 on the history of the Israelite monarchies, and our sources of 
 information as to the unsettled times which preceded the establish- 
 ment of the monarchical system. It is a comparatively straight- 
 forw^ard task to write a history of the monarchy-period which shall 
 be at once fairly full, and shall at the same time conform to the 
 strictest canons of historical research as they may be applied to 
 any period of ancient history : it is a far more complicated matter 
 to deal with the earlier period by application of the same methods, 
 and to extract information which may be regarded as giving us 
 a reliable insight into its history. For, in dealing with this 
 period of Israel's settlement in Canaan, we have to rely upon 
 records which, as written documents, are undoubtedly much 
 further removed from the period with which they deal than are 
 the records of the monarchy. Events have been handed down 
 across a considerable period in the form of stories told and retold 
 round the camp-fire and beside the well, and have undergone (can 
 we doubt it?) some amount of modification and embellishment in 
 the process. We are on the borderland between history and 
 legend. All the more keenly, therefore, do we desire to examine 
 and to estimate in the fullest light which can be offered by critical 
 analysis and by archaeology ; and, so doing, to gain all we can for 
 veritable history. 
 
 ' Cf. further Burney, Judges, Introduction, p. liv.
 
 6 ISRAEL'S SETTLEMENT IN CANAAN 
 
 And now a few words as to my own position. As this discussion 
 proceeds, it ma}' appear that I am adopting- views which fail to 
 commend themselves to either extreme among Biljlical interpreters. 
 I cannot associate myself with the champions of the absolute 
 historical trustworthiness of Israel's ancient traditions in the form 
 in which they have come down to us ; nor, on the other hand, can 
 I side with those who adopt an attitude of extreme scepticism in 
 regard to the possibility of discovering a genuine historical element 
 in the Old Testament documents relating to the period with which 
 I have chosen to deal. Critical study of the historical books of the 
 Old Testament has proved beyond the possibility of a doubt that 
 they are composite in character, consisting of a substratum of 
 ancient narratives which frequently run parallel in presenting 
 more or less variant traditions of the same series of events. 
 These narratives have been utilized and combined by later editors ; 
 and this editorial work has, in some books at least, been not a single 
 but a repeated process, successive editors, usually separated one 
 from another by considerable periods of years, and belonging, as 
 we are accustomed to say, to different ' schools of thought ', having, 
 in turn, done their part to bring the record of Israel's past history 
 into a form which was calculated to make its appeal to the religious 
 thought of their respective ages. The need for these successive 
 processes of editing Israel's historical traditions will be best under- 
 stood if the fact be clearly borne in mind that their chief con- 
 servators were the religious teachers of the nation — the prophets, 
 and that the main object of their preserv^ation was their religious 
 interest rather than their historical interest pure and simple. 
 This is a fact which is recognized in the title assigned by the 
 Jews to the second division of the Old Testament Canon. As 
 will be familiar to you, that Canon falls into three divisions — 
 the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings (Hebrew KetJiubkhn, 
 Greek Hagiographa). The second division, the Prophets, falls 
 again into two sections ; and while the later of these sections, ' the 
 later Prophets,' covers the books which from our modern point 
 of view we naturally regard as prophetic — Isaiah, Jeremiah, 
 Ezekiel, and the Twelve Minor Prophets, the earlier section, Hhe 
 former Prophets,' includes Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings; 
 a fact which proves that, by the founders of the Canon, these 
 historical books were regarded as emanating, no less than ' the 
 later Prophets ', from the circle of Israel's religious teachers, and 
 as possessing an interest and value which, above all other, was 
 a religious one. Now even as regards modern history, it is clear
 
 THE BIBLICAL TRADITION EXAMINED 7 
 
 that the philosophy of history is not the same for all ages. Looked 
 at as regards the practical lessons which it has to teach, history 
 lias from time to time to be rewritten. The religious and political 
 lessons of (let us say) the Reformation or the Great Rebellion are 
 not quite the same for England of the present day as they were 
 for England of a hundred years ago. Lapse of time brings out 
 new aspects of the history of the past, and enables fresh applications 
 of that history to be deduced. So it was with Israel. 
 
 There is, however, some amount of difference between the modern 
 method of writing a history of the past and that practised by the 
 historians of Israel. The historian of our own day has had the 
 advantage of a training in scientific method, and does not as a rule 
 (even when his object is the eliciting of the practical lessons which 
 history has to teach his contemporaries) make the mistake of 
 attributing to past ages the social conditions and developed phases 
 of thought which are current at the time of his writing ; whereas 
 the Israelite historian, not so scientifically trained, was prone to do 
 this, both in the sphere of political organization (the union of the 
 twelve tribes) and in that of institutional religion (the single 
 sanctuary, the laws regulating sacrifice, priesthood, &c.). Fortu- 
 nately, however, for our knowledge of Israel's past history, there 
 exists another difference between the modern method of writing 
 history and that practised in the historical books of the Old Testa- 
 ment — a difference which immediately supplies an answer to two 
 questions which may arise in your minds in regard to the practice 
 which I have attributed to the Israelite historian — ' How do we 
 know that he was not correct in finding the present reflected in the 
 past 1 ' and, ' Assuming that he was incorrect, what means do we 
 possess of putting this to the proof, and of arriving at a truer 
 estimate of past history ? ' The modern historian, in utilizing the 
 ancient records upon which he depends, is accustomed first to 
 master and assimilate their contents to the best of his ability, and 
 then to reproduce the result in his own words, bearing the impress 
 of his own characteristic style, and to some extent at least accommo- 
 dated to the particular presentation of history which he has in view. 
 The ancient Israelite historian used quite a different method. He 
 was content to employ, as we may say, the scissors and paste. 
 He gives us, to a very large extent, the ipsissima verba of his old 
 sources, cut into convenient sections and fitted into his own frame- 
 work. If he has recourse to two parallel sources of history for the 
 same events, he does not work these up into one indistinguishable 
 whole, but divides them up and fits them together like a mosaic,
 
 8 ISRAEL'S SETTLEMENT IN CANAAN 
 
 only omitting such portions of each as are plainly superfluous side 
 by side with the parallel narrative, and sometimes not even doing 
 that ; harmonizing differences here and there by a few touches of 
 his own, but more frequently not even troubling to do this.^ Thus 
 it is more accurate to descx'ibe him as a redactor or editor than as 
 an author. The advantage of such a proceeding from the point of 
 view of the conservation of ancient authentic records is obvious. 
 The modern historian's method undoubtedly has the advantage as 
 regards style and literary unity ; but he may, and very often does, 
 misinterpret the evidence of his sources. This does not greatly 
 matter to us so long as we still have recourse to the ancient sources 
 themselves, and can test and check his use of them. But imagine 
 ourselves transported to a period a tliousand years hence, the old 
 sources lost, and no means surviving by which we can verify and 
 correct our historian's statements, and we are entirely at his mercy. 
 The Israelite historian's method, crude as it may seem from the 
 modern point of view, has the inestimable advantage of preserving 
 
 ^ If any one who is unfamiliar with the results of literary criticism is inclined 
 to doubt whether the method above outlined was really pursued by the editors 
 of the historical books of the Old Testament, he may test the fact by comparing 
 the narrative of Chronicles with that of Samuel and Kings. The editor of 
 Chronicles seems to have had sources at his disposal with which we are other- 
 wise unacquainted ; but his main sources were the older historical books as 
 known to us, and he incorporates whole sections of Samuel and Kings straight 
 into his narrative in just the same way as we infer, through critical analysis, 
 that the redactors of the Pentateuch and 'the former Prophets' (Joshua — 
 Kings) have done. It will suffice to take only one example— the account of 
 the reign of Rehoboam in 2 Chron. x ff. We find that 2 Chron. x. 1-xi. 4, 
 which relates the events leading to the division of the kingdom, corresponds 
 nearly word for word with 1 Kings xii. 1-24. The section which follows after 
 in Kings refers to Jeroboam and the northern kingdom, and the editor of 
 Chronicles omits it as alien to his purpose, and instead continues with a narra- 
 tive from another source narrating Rehoboam's building operations and the 
 internal politics of the kingdom of Judah. This continues to the end of cJi. xi. 
 The chronicler next, in ch. xii, proceeds to relate the invasion of Shishak, king 
 of Egypt. Now this invasion, as related in Kings, occupies four verses — 1 Kings 
 xiv. 25-28. It will be found that the chronicler has used this short narrative 
 as a source. It has been cut up and interlarded with other matter; but it is 
 all there, practically cerhatim. Thus 1 Kings xiv. 25 = 2 Chron. xii. 2a; 
 1 Kings xiv. 28, 27, 28 = 2 Chron. xii. 9 b. 10, 11. 
 
 Here, then, we have a phenomenon precisely analogous to that which is 
 described above. The editor of Chronicles has before him the Book of Kings 
 and another source or sources. He sets to work, not by mastering the contents 
 of his sources and giving out the result in his own words, but by cutting out 
 from his sources just so much as he requires and incorporating verbatim into his 
 history without acknowledgement, sections from the one source being inter- 
 larded with sections from other sources.
 
 THE BIBLICAL TRADITION EXAMINED 9 
 
 to us, practically unaltered, precious fragments of ancient records 
 which would otherwise have perished. 
 
 Such, then, is a general sketch of the view which I adopt with 
 regard to the Biblical sources with which we have to deal — a view 
 which is held in all essentials by every representative of the critical 
 school of 0. T. scholars ; and the evidence for which is so over- 
 whelmingly cogent, and has been clearly set forth in so many 
 easily accessible works, that I need make no apology for assuming 
 it as proved. It is obvious that inquiry into historical fact must 
 find its mateiial in the ancient documents which have been utilized 
 by the editors of the Old Testament records, rather than in the 
 interpretations which have been put upon them, and the additions 
 which have been made to them, by these editors themselves. Such 
 inquiry, however, has to go deeper still. The old narratives them- 
 selves are, as we have already remarked, for the most part the out- 
 come of a long period of oral transmission. When they exist in 
 duplicate, there are variations in detail of more or less magnitude 
 which have to be accounted for. Looked at singly, they not in- 
 frequently exhibit some amount of internal inconsistency which 
 postulates the conclusion that they themselves are to some extent 
 composite ; since such inconsistency surely implies that they them- 
 selves are constructed through utilization and combination of still 
 earlier written documents, or more probably (for the most part) of 
 variant oral traditions. Having distinguished these elements so far 
 as is possible, we obtain statements the historical worth of which 
 can only be assessed by the answer which we give to the question, 
 ' Are they inherently probable ? ' This answer depends partly upon 
 the relation which each statement bears to other statements in the 
 same record, or in parallel records, within the Old Testament itself, 
 i. e. upon the extent to which it works in with a consistent historical 
 scheme as deduced from many such statements. It depends also — 
 and especially — upon the corroboration offered by extra-Biblical 
 evidence, i. e. the evidence of archaeology ; and since such evidence 
 is for the most part contemporary with the period to which it refers, 
 its value to the historian is priceless. The highest form of archaeo- 
 logical corroboration is of course the express mention of a fact as 
 recorded in the Biblical records (such, e. g., as we meet with not 
 infrequently in the Assyrian annals as compared with the history 
 of the Books of Kings) ; but there is also a secondary form which 
 is of very great value, viz. the general conception which external 
 records enable us to form of the conditions of life within the sphere 
 of our inquiry, in so far as the general agreement or non-agreement
 
 10 ISRAEL'S SETTLEMENT IN CANAAN 
 
 of this conception with the Biblical records serves to corroborate or 
 else to invalidate the statements of the latter (a good instance is the 
 conception which the Tell el-Amarna correspondence enables us to 
 form of the condition of Syria and Palestine circa 1400 B. c, which 
 forms an excellent touchstone as to the reliability of the Biblical 
 narratives which presumably deal with about the same period). 
 
 These remarks may serve to illustrate the fact that the attempt to 
 reconstruct a connected scheme of history for the early period 
 with which we are dealing, and in the light of the material which 
 we have to hand, is a task of very great difficulty. While empha- 
 sizing this difficulty as clearly and impartially as I can, I do not, as 
 I have already remarked, associate myself with those who hold that 
 any such attempt is foredoomed to failure on account of the sparse- 
 ness, or practical non-existence, of a genuine historical element in 
 Israel's early traditions which deal with the pre-monarchic period. 
 Quite otherwise. There are certain considerations which, while 
 lying somewhat apart from the line of investigation which we are 
 attempting to pursue in the present course, yet seem (to my mind 
 at least) to point the fact that the history of Israel's religion (and 
 by ' religion ' I here mean, not the heritage of animistic beliefs 
 which was the common property of the Semitic races as a whole, 
 but the birth of a relatively high ethical conception of the nature 
 of God and of His moral requirements) must be carried back at least 
 as far as the age of Moses. I hold that Moses and the theory of 
 religion of which he was traditionally held to be the founder — a 
 theory involving allegiance to a single Deity, Yahweh, upon the 
 basis of a covenant-relation invested with a moral sanction — are of 
 the nature of historical postulates from the unique development 
 of Israel's religion as we see it later on in the full light of history. 
 I had occasion, some ten years ago, to argue this in an article which 
 I published in the Journal of Theological Studies ; ^ and I have 
 since found no reason to go back in any respect from the line of 
 argument which I then adopted. If, however, it be a fact that 
 Moses is an historical figure, and that we are able to gather some 
 sort of genuine conception of the great work which he accomplished, 
 the expectation is created that, in the early traditions of Israel 
 •which deal with his time and after, we ought to be able to trace 
 some elements which may be ranked as veritable history. To this 
 extent, therefore, I approach our subject with a bias in favour of 
 the existence of a real historical kernel in the Biblical sources at our 
 
 1 'A Theory of the Developement ot Israelite Religion in Early Times', 
 Journal oj Theological Studies, April, 1908, pp. 321-52.
 
 THE BIBLICAL TRADITION EXAMINED 11 
 
 disposal ; if that can be called a bias which is (as I think) the 
 outcome of a sound process of reasoning. 
 
 The conception which we gather from the Book of Joshua as it 
 stands with regard to the conquest of Canaan by the tribes of Israel 
 under the leadership of Joshua is doubtless very familiar to you, 
 and need not be set forth at length. The narrative is a direct 
 continuation of the preceding Pentateuchal narrative, which closes 
 with the death of Moses, leaving the twelve tribes of Israel en- 
 camped at Shittim in the plains of Moab, and ready under their 
 new leader to cross the Jordan and begin the conquest of Canaan. 
 It will be recollected that most of the strip of country east of 
 Jordan is pictured as already won, and as promised by Moses to the 
 tribes of Reuben, Gad, and half Manasseh, on the condition that 
 they show their willingness first to assist their brethren in the 
 conquest of the territory west of Jordan. After the passage of the 
 Jordan,^ Jericho, in the Jordan valley, is invested, and speedily 
 falls.'^ An advance is then made against Ai,^ on the eastern side of 
 the Hill-country, and, after an initial repulse, this city is also 
 captured.'* These successes lead the inhabitants of Gibeon,-' and three 
 neighbouring cities, Kephirah, Beeroth, and Kiriath-jearim ^ — all 
 situated in the central part of the Hill-country still farther west — 
 to send envoys to Joshua who pass themselves off as belonging to 
 a far-distant country, and thus succeed in obtaining an alliance 
 with Israel." The kings of five important Amorite cities farther 
 south — Jerusalem, Hebron, Jarmuth, Lachish, and Eglon^ — then 
 
 ^ Joshua iii. 1-iv. 20. 
 
 "^ Joshua vi. The ancient site of Jericho is now known as Tell es-Sultan, 
 a large mound which lies in the Jordan valley five miles west of Jordan, and at 
 the foot of the central range of hills, close to the mouth of the Wady el-Kelt, 
 which affords a passage into the Hill-country, and is thought to be the ancient 
 valley of Achor. The modern Jericho (Eriha) lies one and a half miles 
 south of Tell es-Sultan. 
 
 ^ Probably Hirbet Hayyan, about three miles south-east of Bethel (Betin). 
 
 ^ Joshua vii. 1-viii. 29. 
 
 ^ El-Gib, five miles NNW. of Jerusalem, and one mile due north of Neby 
 Samwil, the ancient Mizpah. 
 
 ® The name Kephirah is preserved in the modern Kefirah, five miles WSW. of 
 el-Gib. Beeroth may be el-Birah, about nine miles north of Jerusalem on the 
 road to Shechem, and four miles NNE. of el-Gib. Kiriath-jearim is probably 
 Kuryet el-'Enab on the carriage-road from Jerusalem to Jaffa, about seven miles 
 WNW. of the former city, and some five miles south-west of el-Gib. For the 
 grounds upon which this identification is based cf. Burney, Judges, p. 430. 
 
 ■^ Joshua ix. 3-26. 
 
 * Jarmuth was situated in the Shephelah (Joshua xii. 11, xv. 35). Its site
 
 12 ISRAEL'S SETTLEMENT IN CANAAN 
 
 make an attack upon Gibeon on account of its defection to the 
 invading Israelites ; Gibeon sends an urgent summons to Joshua for 
 assistance ; and the Israelite leader immediately makes a forced 
 night-march from his camp at Gilgal in the Jordan valley, and 
 falling suddenly upon the Araorites at Gibeon succeeds in routing 
 them, and pursues them westward by the way of Beth-horon as far 
 as Azekah and Makkedah, in, or bordering on, the lowlands to the 
 west of the central range,^ capturing and executing the five 
 Amorite kings. ^ 
 
 All this narrative of the campaign in southern Canaan, in so far 
 as it gives us a description of the course of military events, is 
 formed by combination of elements from the two old nai'ratives 
 J and E, emanating respectively from the Southern and Northern 
 Kingdoms, which can be traced throughout the Pentateuch ; though 
 literary analysis makes it clear that in the Book of Joshua the 
 composite narrative from J and E, constructed as in the Penta- 
 teuch by a redactor R''^, has been subsequently re-edited by an 
 historian of the Deuteronomic school, whom we may call R° 
 
 is commonly supposed to be marked by the modern Hirbet el-Yarmuk, sixteen 
 miles WSW. of Jerusalem. Lacliish has almost certainly been identified in the 
 important site Tell el-Hesy, some thirty-four miles south-west of Jerusalem, 
 where the Shephelah meets the maritime plain : cf. Petrie, Tell el-Hesy; Bliss, 
 A Mound of many Cities. Two miles north of Tell el-Hesy is Hirbet 'Aglan, 
 which accurately preserves the name' of Eglon. The site, however, shows fev/ 
 traces of ancient remains, and it is likely that the name may have been shifted 
 to a new site after the destruction of the ancient city : cf. Cheyne in Encyclo- 
 paedia Bihlica, 1204. 
 
 ^ The two Beth-horons — still distinguished, as in Biblical times, as Upper 
 Beth-horon (Bet-'ur el-foka) and Lower Beth-horon (Bet-'ur et-tahta)— lie, the 
 former five miles, the latter somewhat under seven miles, WNW. of Gibeon 
 (el-Gibj, and command one of the most important roads from the maritime 
 plain into the Hill-country, the route being one of the three employed by 
 General Allenby in his attack upon the Turkish position at Jerusalem 
 (cf. Dispatch, § ISj. Azekah and Makkedah are unidentified. As the site of 
 the latter. Sir Charles Warren has suggested el-Mugar ('the Caves') in the 
 vale of Sorek, some twenty-five miles west of Gibeon and two and a quarter 
 miles south-west of 'Ekron ('Akir), upon the ground that 'at this site alone, of 
 all possible sites for Makkedah in the Philistine plain, do caves still exist ' 
 (cf. Hastings, Diet, of the Bible, iii, p. 218 a), the existence of a well-known 
 cave at this site being postulated by the narrative in Joshua x. 16 if. If, 
 however, the Azekah with which Makkedah is coupled is the city of that name 
 mentioned in 1 Sam. xvii. 1 as in the vale of Elah (Wady es-Sunt) not far from 
 Socho (Hirbet Suwekeh), the inference is that the Amorites did not extend 
 their flight far out into the maritime plain, but turned left-handed in order to 
 regain the shelter of the hills by one of the southern passes. 
 
 * Joshua X. 1-27.
 
 THE BIBLICAL TRADITION EXAMINED 13 
 
 (Deuteronomic Redactor). This editor's additions, however, which 
 are easily distinguishable by their strongly-marked Deuteronomic 
 phraseology,^ do not up to this point modify the course of military 
 operations as narrated in JE ; his comprehensive statement in 
 ix. 1, 2 that ' all the kings that were beyond Jordan ', from the 
 Lebanon southward, ' were gathered together to fight with Joshua ' 
 immediately after the capture of Ai, and before narration of the 
 events which led to the limited league of the five Amorite kings 
 in the south against Gibeon, being so obviously without sequel in 
 the succeeding narrative that it hardly affects our conception of it 
 in the slightest degree. After the narrative of the defeat of the 
 Amorite kings, however, we have, from the hand of R"^, a summary 
 account of the conquest of southern Palestine,^ in which it is stated 
 that Joshua captured Makkedah, Libnah, Lachish, Gezer, Eglon, 
 Hebron, and Debir.^ Finally, the editor concludes with, the state- 
 ment that the whole of southern Palestine, except the maritime 
 plain belonging to the Philistines, fell into Joshua's hands. He 
 mentions ' the Hill-country ' or central range ; ' the Negeb ', i. e. the 
 arid steppe-region extending from a Jittle south of Hebron, where 
 the hills gradually sink, to Kadesh-Barnea about fifty miles south 
 of Beer-sheba ; ' the Shephelah ' or Lowland, i. e. the range of low 
 hills or downs lying between what was subsequently the Judaean 
 Hill-country to the east and the maritime plain to the west, and 
 extending as far north as the vale of Aijalon ; * and ' the Slopes ', 
 i. e. the fall of the Hill-country to the maritime plain north of 
 Aijalon, where no Shephelah or Lowland intervenes.^ It is, how- 
 ever, to be noticed that Judges i. 16, 17 attributes the conquest of 
 the Negeb to the tribes of Judah and Simeon acting in concert 
 apart from the co-operation of the other tribes ; and the capture of 
 
 1 Cf. Driver, Introd. to the Literature of the 0. T. (9th ed.), pp. 99 ff., 105 ff., 116. 
 
 • Joshua X. 28-43. 
 
 ' Libnah is unidentified. The site commonly accepted for Debir is ez- 
 Zahariyyeh, about eleven miles south-west of Hebron, but the identification is 
 purely conjectural, and is open to more than one objection. Gender's statement 
 {Tent Work, p. 245) that Debir 'has the same meaning' as ez-Zahariy3'eh is 
 wholly incorrect: cf. Burney, Judges, pp. 10 f. On Gezer cf. p. 20, and on 
 the other cities mentioned p. 12, foot-notes. 
 
 * This (as pointed out by G. A. Smith, Historical Geographi/, pp. 201 ff.) seems 
 to represent the proper usage of the term Shephelah, though there are indica- 
 tions of a wider and looser usage including under the term the maritime plain 
 of Philistia. Cf. Burney, Judges, pp. 7 f . 
 
 ^ On the difference of physical configuration south and north of the vale of 
 Aijalon, which is accurately indicated by the distinction in nomenclature, 
 cf. G. A. Smith, Historical Geograpliy, pp. 203 f.
 
 14 ISRAEL'S SETTLEMENT IN CANAAN 
 
 Debir, or Kiriath-sepher, and Hebron is represented in Joshua xv. 
 14-19 = Judges i. 10-15 as due to Caleb the Kenizzite. It can 
 hardly be doubted, therefore, that R° ascribes to Joshua more than 
 he actually carried out, and that we have in his summary a mere 
 generalization for which no facts from ancient sources were forth- 
 coming. This conclusion we shall presently substantiate through 
 examination of the document embodied in Judges i. 
 
 We next hear, in ch. xi. of a confederation of the kings of 
 northern Palestine under Jabin, king of Hazor.^ The kings of the 
 cities of Madon, Shimron, and Achshaph - are specified in i;. 1 ; but 
 V. 2 adds inclusive reference to ' the kings that were on the north, 
 in the Hill-country, and in the Arabah to the south of Chinneroth, 
 and in the Lowland, and in the heights of Dor on the west, the 
 Canaanites on the east and on the west, and the Amorites, and the 
 Hittites, and the Perizzites, and the Jebusites in the Hill-country, 
 and the Hivvites under Hermon in the land of Mizpah '." It seems 
 clear that this verse, with its allusion to six out of the ' seven 
 nations' of Canaan, including the Jebusites who are otherwise 
 known only as inhabitants ol Jerusalem in the south, is, to some 
 extent at least, an editorial amplification. On this occasion for the 
 first time the Israelites had to encounter a foe equipped with 
 chariots and horses. Joshua met and defeated them at the waters 
 of Merom,'* the defeat was followed up and turned into a rout, their 
 horses were captured and destroyed and their chariots burnt. The 
 
 ^ The name Hazor seems to be preserved in the modern name of the valley 
 Merg (* meadow ') el-Hadirah on the northern side of the Wady 'Auba which 
 runs into the lake of Huleh, and in (jebel (' hill ') Hadirah immediately to the 
 east of the 'meadow'. There are no traces of an ancient city upon this hill, 
 and it is therefore supposed that Hazor may have been one of the ruined sites 
 upon the hills still farther east: cf. Buhl, Geoyyapliie des alten Palclsthia, 
 p. 236. 
 
 2 The name Achshaph is accurately reproduced in Hirbet Iksaf a little south 
 of the great bend of the river Litany, though it may be doubted whether this 
 identification suits the mention in .Joshua xix. 25, where a city of this name is 
 enumerated as belonging to Asher. The other two cities are unidentified. 
 
 " It is probable that ' Hittites ' and ' Hivvites ' have here accidentally 
 changed places (cf. LXX, Cod. B), and the same change is to be made in 
 Judges iii. 3 (cf. Burney, Judges, ad loc). 'The land of Mizpah ' seems to be 
 the same as 'the valley (Hebrew hik'a) of Mizpah ' in v. 8, i. e. probably the 
 southern portion of the great plain between the two Lebanon-ranges now 
 called el-Buka . On the use of the term Shephelah, ' Lowland ', in application 
 to a region in northern Canaan cf. G. A. Smith, Historical Geograyluj, 
 p. 208, n. 3. 
 
 ■' The site is uncertain, identification with the lake of Huleh being very pre- 
 carious. (Jf. S. A. Cook in Encyclopaedia Bihlica, 3038.
 
 THE BIBLICAL TRADITION EXAMINED 15 
 
 remainder of the chapter (vv. 10-23) is from the hand of BP. In 
 vv. 10-15 this editor generalizes the effect of Joshua's victory in 
 the north, just as he has already done in the case of southern 
 Palestine. It is stated that Joshua captured and burned the city 
 of Hazor, and then proceeded to take the cities of all the kings who 
 had joined in the confederation, together with the kings themselves, 
 placing them and their subjects under the ban, and utterly destroy- 
 ing them. The chapter closes with an editorial summary of the 
 conquests of Joshua throughout Palestine. 
 
 Thus we have reviewed the account given in the old (JE) 
 narrative of Joshua's conquests in Canaan. We find that these 
 conquests are divided into two campaigns : (1) a campaign in 
 southern Palestine in which the cities of Jericho and Ai are cap- 
 tured, and a coalition of five Amorite kings is defeated and cut to 
 pieces ; and (2) a campaign in northern Palestine in which Jabin, king 
 of Hazor, heads an indefinite number of the kings of the north, and 
 the arms of Israel are again victorious. We have seen, further, that 
 R" regajcds Joshua's conquests as more far-reaching than the old 
 narratlAfcl^eems to warrant, assuming that he not only defeated the 
 noruieri^md southern confederacies in pitched battle, but also 
 followed uj^ his victories by capturing the cities of the north and 
 south so thoroughly that practically the whole of the Hill-country 
 of Palestine fell into Israel's hands through Joshua's exertions and 
 uuring his lifetime. A list of the kings conquered by Israel under 
 Moses and Joshua is given by R^ in ch. xii ; and in ck. xiii. 2-6 we 
 have a notice from this editor of the territory still remaining un- 
 conquered, which may be summarized as the southern part of the 
 maritime plain from the border of Egypt ^ as far north as Ekron, 
 the most northerly of the five principal cities of the Philistines ; 
 the Phoenician coast-land stretching from Accho northwards ; ^ and 
 
 ^ 'From the Shihor which is before (i.e. eastward of) Egypt.' The refer- 
 ence probably is to the eastern (Pelusiac) branch of the Nile. The usual defini- 
 tion of the south-western boundary of Canaan is ' the wady of Egypt ' (/nJ 
 DnVJ^), i. e. the modern Wady el-'Aris. 
 
 ^ Reading '■ and from Accho which belongeth to the Zidonians, unto Apliek '. 
 We amend i3yx?1 (a suggestion not hitherto offered) in place of the incompre- 
 hensible nnjjpi of M. T. (R. V. ' and Mearah '), where the JD is clearly the pre- 
 position |D defining the starting point (cf. v. 3 "lUT'ti'n P). Sennacherib's 
 enumeration of the Phoenician cities makes Accho the southernmost : — 
 * Great Sidunnu, Little Sidunnu, Bit-zitti, Sariptu, Mahalliba, Usu, Akzibi, 
 Akku ' (cf. Taijlor Ci/linder, col. ii, 1. 38). Aphek is probably the modern Afka, 
 near the source of the Nahr Ibrahim.
 
 16 ISRAEL'S SETTLEMENT IN CANAAN 
 
 the Lebanon with its environs.^ This practically represents the 
 state of affairs during the greater part of the monarchy-period. 
 
 Let us now turn to Judges i, which offers us a portion of an old 
 document of the first importance for the history of Israel's settle- 
 ment in Canaan. As the chapter now stands in the Book of 
 Judges, it professes to give us an account of events which happened 
 'after the death of Joshua' {v. 1), as related in Joshua xxiv. 
 29, 30 (E). The editor who prefixed this statement to the chapter 
 assumes that he is taking up the narrative from the point reached 
 in the closing chapter of the preceding book. The proper continua- 
 tion of Joshua xxiv is found, however, in Judges ii. 6ff., where 
 vv. 6-9 (narrating Joshua's dismissal of the people after his fare- 
 well-address recorded in Joshua xxiv, the fact that the people 
 served Yahweh during the lifetime of Joshua and the elders who 
 survived him, and the death and burial of Israel's great leadei-) are 
 almost verbally identical with Joshua xxiv. 28, 31, 29, 30. So far 
 from dealing with events which happened subsequently to Joshua's 
 death, the old narrative incorporated in Judges i. 1-ii. 5 pictures 
 Israel as still encamped at Gilgal (ii. 1), or close by at Jericho 
 (i. 16), shortly after the passage of the Jordan, and before the tribes 
 had entered upon their inheritances. Judges ii. 6-iii. 6 is the real 
 introduction to Judges as the book left the hand of the main editor, 
 and ch. i. 1-ii. 5 has been added by a later editor for the purpose 
 of explaining the unsettled condition of affairs as related in the 
 narrative of Judges by the addition of details known to him which 
 had not been incorporated by the main editor in his introduction. 
 
 From examination of the phraseologj'' of the old narrative 
 embodied in Judges i. 1-ii. 5 the fact emerges that it is derived 
 from the Judaean document J.^ Extracts from the same narrative 
 
 ' Reading ii3n^3 nb?iin psni 'and the land which bordereth on the 
 Lebanon' (i.e. Coele-Syria), with Buhl and Steuernagel, in place of M. T. 
 fiJ^pHv^l v??l' r^-^'^1, i^ which the first two words will not construe (R. V. 
 ' and the land of the Gebalites ' demands an original v??ili J* v v"!)- 
 
 ^ The following words and phrases in Judges i. 1-ii. 5 are characteristic of 
 J: — 'the Canaauites' as a general term for the inhabitants of Palestine E uses 
 'the Amorites ' in the same general sense), i. 1; 'the Canaanites and the 
 Perizzites' coupled, i. 5 ; 'at the first' (n7nn3>, i. 1 ; 'deal kindly with' (lit. 
 ' do kindness with ', DJ? IDH H^'J?), i. 24 ; ' dependencies ' (lit. ' daughters ', 
 ni33), i. 27 five times ; 'and it came to pass, when ' ("'3 \"IM), i. 28 ; ' dwelt in 
 the midst of (mpa yy), i. 29, 30, 32,33; 'prevailed' (lit. 'was heavy', n33), 
 i. 35 ; ' the Angel of Yahweh ', ii. 1. Cf. the list of characteristic J phrases in 
 Carpenter and Harford-Battersby, Hexateiich, i, pp. 185 ff.
 
 THE BIBLICAL TRADITION EXAMINED 17 
 
 are to be found in the Book of Joshua, several of them being 
 parallel to passages in Judges i, and, where not identical in 
 wording, appearing in a more original form. Thus Joshua xv. 
 14-19 = Judges i. 20, 10b (in part), 11-15; Joshua xv. 63 = 
 Judges i. 21 ; Joshua xvi. 10 = Judges i. 29 ; Joshua xvii. 11-13 = 
 Judges i. 27, 28. Further extracts from the same narrative, not 
 contained in Judges i, are found in Joshua xiii. 13, xvii. 14-18, 
 xix. 47, and probably in Num. xxxii. 39, 41, 42.^ 
 
 Now the picture drawn by this old narrative of Israel's settle- 
 ment in Canaan differs from that of R° in Joshua in two respects. 
 In the first place, the conquest of various districts is represented as 
 due to the efforts of individual tribes. And, secondly, the tribes, 
 in making their settlement, appear in many or most cases to have 
 been unable to drive out or exterminate the races in possession, 
 and to have been content to settle down side by side with them, 
 making their way, eventually, largely by a process of more or less 
 peaceful penetration. 
 
 We read first that the tribe of Judah enlisted the mutual co-opera- 
 tion of Simeon, and attacked and conquered Adoni-Bezek, who 
 seems to have been king of Jerusalem {vv. 3-7). There is reason 
 for thinking that the name Adoni-Bezek is a corruption of Adoni- 
 Zedek ; and, if this is so, it is not unlikely that this Adoni-Zedek 
 is the same that appears in the story of the Amorite league against 
 Joshua, and that we have here a variant tradition as to his fate. 
 According to this tradition, the Judaeans contented themselves 
 with cutting off the king's thumbs and great toes, thus disabling 
 him for warfare ; and the narrative then informs us that ' they 
 (i.e. we must assume, Adoni-Bezek's own followers) brought him 
 to Jerusalem, and he died there '. The late editor, however, doubt- 
 less concluding that the subject of the verb is the victorious 
 Judaeans, inserts at this point the statement that ' the children 
 of Judah fought against Jerusalem, and took it, and smote it at the 
 edge of the sword, and the city they set on fire ' {v. 8). This asser- 
 tion, however, is directly contradicted by the statement of the old 
 narrative a little farther on (v. 21) that ' the children of Benjamin 
 (or, according to the parallel passage in Joshua xv. 63, ' the children 
 of Judah ' -) did not dispossess the Jebusites dwelling in Jerusalem ; 
 
 ^ The original form of the narrative has been skilfully reconstructed by 
 Budde, Richter und Samuel, pp. 84 ff. Cf. also Burney, Judges, pp. 47 fF. 
 
 ^ The reading 'Judah' is the more original. The alteration to ' Benjamin' 
 m Juflges 1. 21 was probably made by the editor in accordance with Joshua 
 xviii. l(i P, which, in describing the lot of the children of Benjamin, makes the 
 
 B. C
 
 18 ISRAEL'S SETTLEMENT IN CANAAN 
 
 but the Jebusites dwelt with the children of Benjamin (Joshua, 
 " Judah ") in Jerusalem unto this day.' The con-ectness of the 
 old narrative, as against the editor, is corroborated by the storj- of 
 Judges xix, according to which Jerusalem in the days of the Judges 
 is ' a city of the Jebusites ... a city of foreigners who are not of 
 the children of Israel' (w. 10-12) ; and also by the fact that the 
 capture of the Jebusite stronghold was one of the great achieve- 
 ments of David in the early years of his reign (2 Sam. v. 6 ff.). 
 
 Following on this, the editor states that the Judaeans advanced 
 against the Canaanites dwelling in the Hill- country'', the Negeb, 
 and the Shephelah, and attacked and captured Hebron, smiting the 
 Anakite clans which dwelt there {vv. 9, 10), The following verses 
 {vv. 11-15) are parallel to Joshua xv. 14-19, from which it is clear 
 that it was the Kenizzite clan of Caleb, and no^ the tribe of Judah 
 as a whole, which captured Hebron. From this point of vantage 
 Debir, or Kiriath-sepher, fell to Othniel, a leader, or more probably 
 a subordinate clan, of the clan of Caleb. 
 
 We are next informed (vv. i6, 17) that Hobab the Kenite,^ Moses' 
 father-in-law, accompanied the Judaeans into the Negeb, and settled 
 down among the Amalekites "^ (among whom, it may be remem- 
 bered, we find the Kenites in the narrative of Saul's campaign 
 against the Amalekites : 1 Sam. xv. 6). Judah then goes with 
 Simeon and smites the Canaanites inhabiting Zephath (an unidenti- 
 fied site in the Negeb), devoting the city to destruction — whence, 
 according to the old narrator, the name by which the city was 
 subsequently known was Hormah (interpreted as meaning ' devoted 
 to the ban' : Heb. herein). On this little narrative we shall have 
 more to say in the next lecture. 
 
 The editor then states that Judah captured the Philistine cities 
 Gaza, Ashkelon, and Ekron,^ ' with the borders thereof,' i. e. the 
 contiguous territory [v. 18). This editorial statement is con- 
 tradicted by the very next verse {v. 19), which belongs to the old 
 narrative, where it is stated that ' Yahweh was with Judah, and he 
 
 border run south of Jerusalem so as to include the city, and mentions it among 
 the cities belonging to the tribe in v. 28. 
 
 ^ Reading ''^''i^n ^^hl with most modern commentators in place of M. T. 
 lyj? ''jni 'And the children of Kenite ', which cannot be original, since the 
 gentilic adjective ' Kenite ' cannot be used of an individual without the article, 
 which is tacitly inserted in R. V. , 
 
 '^ M. T. Cyn 'the people ' is clearly a remnant of an original ^p.^^l!'^' "wliich 
 occurs as a doublet {lura raii Xnov 'AfioKrjK) in the LXX MSS. defsz (notation of 
 Brooke and M'^Lean) and Coptic. CWd Latin ' cum eo Amulec '. 
 
 ' The modern Gazzeh, 'Askalan, and 'Akir.
 
 THE BIBLICAL TRADITION EXAMINED 19 
 
 gained possession of the Hill-country ; for he was not able to dis- 
 possess the inhabitants of the Vale, because they bad chariots of 
 iron '. The Vale (Heb. hd-'emel-) is the regular term for the 
 maritime plain in which these Philistine cities were situated. 
 
 The narrative next passes {vv. 22 ff.) to the doings of ' the house 
 of Joseph ', a term which may include not merely Ephraim and 
 Manasseh, but also Benjamin. We read that they ' went up ' to 
 BetheP (i.e. presumably, 'up' from the camp at Gilgal in the 
 Jordan valley), and having captured a Bethelite and learned from 
 him the most advantageous point for assault, they smote the city 
 ' at the edge of the sword ', i.e. without giving quarter to the 
 inhabitants. This account seems to picture an independent attack 
 made by the Joseph-tribes upon the Hill-country, and we shall 
 see later on that this surmise is probably correct. In the narrative 
 of Joshua viii. 17 the men of Bethel are mentioned as aiding the 
 men of Ai to repel Israel's attack upon the latter city ; but the 
 reference, which finds no place in the LXX text, is out of harmony 
 with the context, and is almost certainly to be regarded as a late 
 gloss. We have no account in the Book of Joshua of the capture 
 of Bethel, though R^ in Joshua xii. 16 mentions the king of Bethel 
 in the list of kings smitten by Joshua. 
 
 Then follows (vv. 27-29) reference to the failure of the Joseph- 
 tribes to dislodge the Canaanites from their strongholds. Manasseh 
 was unable to capture a series of fortified cities lying to the north 
 of the central Hill-country on the southern border of the great 
 plain of Esdraelon. These are enumerated as Beth-shean in the 
 fall of the plain to. the Jordan valley in the east, Ibleam in the 
 centre, and Taanach and Megiddo farther west ; ^ as well as Dor 
 upon the sea-coast,^ which we know from the Egyptian story of 
 Wenamon ^ to have been, at or about this time, in the possession, 
 not of the Canaanites, but of the Takkara, a people who invaded 
 Palestine together with the Philistines during the reign of the 
 Egyptian king Ra'messe III. These cities, with their ' daughters ' 
 or smaller dependencies, thus formed a belt across the land, to some 
 
 ^ The modern Betin, about ten miles north of Jerusalem. 
 
 ^ The first three names are preserved in the modern Besan, the Wady 
 Bel'ameh (cf. the form cySzi, 1 Chron. vi. 70, Heb. Text v. 55), and Tell 
 el-Ta'annuk. Megiddo is identified with Tell el-Mutesellim (' the mound of the 
 governor'), an important ancient site five miles north-west of Tell el-Ta'annuk. 
 
 ^ Probably the modern Tanturah, some eight miles north of Caesarea. 
 
 * Cf. Breasted, Ancient Records of Egypt, iv. §§ 557 ff'. ; Maspero, Fojjulur 
 Stories of Ancient Egypt, pp. 202 ff'. 
 
 c 2
 
 20 ISRAELS SETTLEMENT IN CANAAN 
 
 extent cutting off the Joseph-tribes from the Israelite tribes farther 
 north. We read that ' when Israel was waxen strong, thej- impressed 
 the Canaanites for labour-gangs ', but, it is significantly added, ' they 
 did not drive them out at all.' Similarly, Ephraim, farther south, 
 ' did not dispossess the Canaanites who dwelt in Gezer ; but the 
 Canaanites dwelt in the midst of them in Gezer '. With this state- 
 ment it is hard to reconcile the assertion of R° in Joshua x. 33 that, 
 when Horam, king of Gezer, came to the assistance of Lachish, 
 ' Joshua smote him and his people until he had left him none 
 remaining.' It will be recollected that Gezer was still in the 
 hands of the Canaanites in the reign of Solomon, when it was 
 captured and burnt by the Pharaoh who was king of Egypt 
 at that time, and given as a dowry to his daughter on the occasion 
 of her marriage with the Israelite king (1 Kings ix. 16). Gezer 
 is situated upon an outlying spur of the Shephelah, over-looking 
 the Philistine plain, and about eighteen miles west-north-west of 
 Jerusalem. 
 
 We now reach a narrative of the greatest interest and importance 
 in the history of the settlement of the Joseph-tribes. We have just 
 seen that the tribe of Manasseh, though apparently successful in 
 effecting a settlement in the Hill-country to the south of Esdraelon, 
 was debarred from entrance to the great plain through failure to 
 conquer the belt of Canaanite cities which guarded its southern 
 extremity. At this point in the narrative, then, there seems 
 originally to have followed the passage from the old document J 
 which now stands in Joshua xvii. 14-18. The house of Joseph 
 approach Joshua and complain that they have only received one 
 lot, which is insufficient for their numbers, the extent of this lot 
 being further diminished owing to the fact that part of it falls 
 in the Vale (i.e. the plain of Esdraelon), where the Canaanites 
 are too strong to be ousted owing to their possession of iron 
 chariots. Joshua, in acknowledging the justice of their complaint, 
 recommends them to go up 'into the forest' and cut down for 
 themselves, this forest being further described as ' Hill-country ' 
 in V. 18. That the reference, however, cannot be to any part of 
 the Hill-country west of Jordan seems to be clear. The situation 
 presupposed is that the west- Jordan country has already been 
 allotted among the tribes, and the house of Joseph have not found 
 the difficulties of gaining a footing in the portion of Hill-country 
 (in contrast to the Vale) allotted to them to be insuperable. Thus 
 Prof. Budde ^ has suggested, with great plausibility, that the Hill- 
 ^ Richter unci Samuel, pp. 32 ff.
 
 THE BIBLICAL TRADITION EXAMINED 21 
 
 country which Joshua mvites them to conquer is the Hill-country 
 of Gilead, which is appropriately described as yaar, forest, or 
 jungle-land.^ The sequel is found by Budde in the passage from 
 J which now stands in Num. xxxii. 39, 41, 42, describing the 
 successes of Manassite clans in the Gilead region. Finally, there 
 probably followed the J passage Joshua xiii. 13, which mentions 
 the fact that the Aramaean clans of the Geshurites and Maa- 
 chathites were not expelled by Israel from their positions east of 
 Jordan. The whole narrative, then, with some slight omissions 
 in Joshua xvii. 14 ff. which are clearly due to textual conflation,^ 
 seems originally to have run as follows : — ' And the house of Joseph 
 spake unto Joshua, saying, " Why hast thou given me but one lot 
 and one territory for an inheritance, seeing that I am a great 
 people, forasmuch as hitherto Yahweh hath blessed me? The 
 Hill-country doth not suffice for me ; and all the Canaanites that 
 dwell in the land of the Vale have chariots of iron, both they that 
 are in Beth-shean and its dependencies, and they that are in the 
 vale of Jezreel." And Joshua said unto the house of Joseph, "Thou 
 art a great people, and hast great power : thou shalt not have one 
 lot only. For the Hill-country of Gilead shall be thine : get thee 
 up into the forest and cut down for thyself there ; since the Hill- 
 country of Ephraim is too narrow for thee." Then Machir the 
 son of Manasseh, went to Gilead, and took it, and dispossessed 
 the Amorites that were therein. And Jair the son of Manasseh 
 v.'ent and took the tent-villages thereof, and called them the tent- 
 
 1 Cf. the account of David's battle with the forces of Absalom in 2 Sam. xviii. 
 The scene of the battle is in Gilead, in a forest country {yaar). The charac- 
 teristics of the region are the same at the present day. G. A. Smith speaks of 
 'the ridges of Gilead, where the oak branches rustled and their shadows swung 
 to and fro over the cool paths' ; and, again, states that ' Gilead, between the 
 Yarmukandthe Jabbok,hasits ridges covered by forests, under which you may 
 march for the whole day in breezy and fragrant yhade ' (cf. Historical Geography, 
 pp. 521, 522). 
 
 '•* The words of v. 15 D\S3-ini man ps*2 ' in the land of the Perizzites and 
 the Rephaim ', which are wanting in LXX, are probably a corrupt doublet of the 
 following OnSX "in "J7 fX ''3 'since the Hill-country of Ephraim is too narrow 
 for thee '. The main part of v. 18, with its five-times-repeated O and its 
 apparent ascription of iron chariots to the Canaanites inhabiting the Hill- 
 country, appears in its present form to be due to the Priestly editor as a weak 
 summary of his view of the situation, viz. that what is contemplated is a further 
 extended conquest west of Jordan. Other editorial additions ai'e v. 15a ' And 
 Joshua said . . . great people ' (from v. 17), v. 16 a 'And the children of Joseph 
 said' (an addition necessitated by the dislocation oi v. 15), v. 17 'to Ephraim 
 and to Manasseh', explanatory. The order of the remainder is vv. 14, 16, 17, 
 18a (down to 'thine 'j, 15.
 
 22 ISRAEL'S SETTLEMENT IN CANAAN 
 
 villages of Jair. And Nobali went and took Kenath and its depen- 
 dencies, and called it Nobah after his own name. But the children 
 of Israel did not dispossess the Geshurites and the Maachathites ; 
 but Geshur and Maachath dwelt in the midst of Israel, unto 
 this day.' ^ 
 
 The remainder of the old narrative refers to the very indiflferent 
 successes of four other tribes in establishing themselves west of 
 Jordan ; viz. Zebulun and Asher in the north ; Naphtali possibly 
 in the north, where we find the tribe in later times; but more 
 probably south-west of Ephraim in the neighbourhood of Dan, 
 which is the fourth tribe mentioned. Zebulun, north of Manasseh 
 in the plain of Esdraelon, failed to dispossess the inhabitants of 
 Kitron and Nahalol, 'but the Canaanites dwelt in the midst of 
 them, and became labour-gangs' {v. 30). Asher was even less 
 successful. Failing to drive out the Canaanites from the coast- 
 cities of Phoenicia, from Accho northwards, they ' dwelt in the 
 midst of the Canaanites inhabiting the land; for they did not 
 dispossess them' (vv. 31, 32). The phrase 'dwelt in the midst of 
 the Canaanites ' — in contrast to ' the Canaanites dwelt in the midst 
 of them ', as is said of Ephraim and Zebulun — embodies a distinc- 
 tion with a difference, implying that the Phoenician Canaanites 
 all along continued to hold the upper hand. The case was similar 
 with Naphtali, who failed to dispossess the inhabitants of Beth- 
 shemesh and Beth-anath, and ' dwelt in the midst of the Canaanites 
 inhabiting the land'; though the narrative adds the statement 
 that the inhabitants of these cities ' became labour-gangs for them ' 
 {v. 33). As for Dan, we are informed that the Aniorites — or, as 
 w^e should probably read, the Canaanites ^ — pressed them out of 
 
 ^ In favour of the conclusion that the settlement of half Manasseh east of 
 Jordan took place through an overflow-movement from the west of .Jordan, we 
 may note the fact that, according to the narrative of Num. xxxii. 1, it is the 
 tribes of Reuben and Gad only that petition Moses to allow them to settle east 
 of Jordan in the portion of Gilead already conquered (south of the Jabbok) ; 
 though reference to half Manasseh is introduced at the end of the narrative 
 {v. 33) by the hand of the redactor, and Deut. iii. 13 ff. makes the assigning of 
 east-Jordan territory to part of this tribe the work of Moses. The kernel of 
 Num. xxxii is clearly old ( JE), though it has been worked up with portions of the 
 document P by a late redactor. Of. Gray, Niinibers {Internut. Crit. Comtn.), 
 p. 426 ; Carpenter and Harford-Battersby, Hexateuch, ii, p. 239. An old allusion 
 to Gad's claim to territory east of Jordan, and to his undertaking to assist in 
 conquering the west-Jordan territory, is perhaps to be found in the so-called 
 ' Blessing of Moses ', Deut. xxxiii. 21. 
 
 '^ The use of the term ' Amorites ', here and in v. 35, as a general designation 
 for the inhabitants of Canaan (elsewhere in the narrative called 'Canaanites',
 
 THE BIBLICAL TRADITION EXAMINED 23 
 
 their settlements in the Shephelah and maritime plain into the 
 Hill-country, 'for they did not suffer them to come down into 
 the Vale' {v. 34). The original continuation of this notice is found 
 in Joshua xix. 47, which (with a necessary emendation ^) runs as 
 follows : ' So the border of the children of Dan was too strait for 
 them ; and the children of Dan went up, and fought with Leshem, 
 and took it, and smote it at the edge of the sword, and took posses- 
 sion of it, and dwelt therein; and they called Leshem, Dan, after 
 the name of Dan their father.' This migration is further related 
 in Judges xviii, where the conquered city is called Laish (vv. 7, 27). 
 Thenceforwai'd Dan figures in the phrase ' from Dan to Beersheba ' 
 as the northernmost limit of Palestine. 
 
 We have left discussion of the position occupied by Naphtali, as 
 pictured in our old narrative, until after mention of the enforced 
 movements of the tribe of Dan. It is usually assumed that the 
 tribe was occupying its northern home as defined in the late 
 Priestly document Joshua xix. 3.2-39, a district to the north of 
 Zebulun, bounded by the territory of Asher on the west, and by 
 the Jordan on the east. Prof. Steuernagel ^ has suggested, how- 
 ever, with considerable plausibility that, since Naphtali and Dan 
 were originally offshoots of a single stock (sons of the handmaid 
 Bilhah; i.e. probably, originally forming a single tribe known as 
 Bilhah), and since Dan at first dwelt south-west of Ephraim, 
 Naphtali's early home was probably in the same neighbourhood, 
 and he, like Dan, was obliged eventually to seek a home farther 
 north. Thus, in the statement that ' Naphtali did not dispossess 
 the inhabitants of Beth-shemesh and Beth-anath ' (v. 33), the refer- 
 ence may be to the southern Beth-shemesh, i.e. the modern *Ain- 
 sems which stands on an eminence south of the Wady Sarar (the 
 ancient ' vale of Sorek ') and within sight of the Danite city Zorah 
 on the northern side of the wady. The mention of Beth-shemesh 
 and Beth-anath in the north (where neither has been identified) 
 in Joshua xix. 38 is then a later assumption, based on the fact 
 that Naphtali eventually occupied a northern position. This view 
 gains some support from the blessing of Naphtali in Deut. xxxiii. 23 
 
 in accordance with the regular practice of J) is strange. Probably the term 
 has been substituted by a later hand, under the influence of the textual cor- 
 ruption ' Aniorites ' for ' Ildomites ' in v. 36. Cf. discussion in Bumey, Judges, 
 ad loc. 
 
 * Read DHD , , , "IV'1 ' was too strait for them ', in place of DniD . . ♦ N2f>), 
 R. V. ' went out beyond them '. 
 
 ^ Die Einivanderung der israelitischen Stamme in Kanami, pp. 28 f.
 
 24 ISRAEL'S SETTLEMENT IN CANAAN 
 
 — ' Possess thou the Sea and the South ' (nc>-i^ omi D"'). Here 
 Naphtali (according to Steuernagel) appears, like Dan, to be hard 
 pressed by foes, and the wish is expressed that he may exert his 
 power and conquer the Philistine maritime plain (yam), and the 
 ddrom, or South, i.e. the Shephelah, which is so designated in 
 later Jewish usage.^ On the ordinary assumption that Naphtali 
 is here pictured as occupying his fin&;l northern position, ' Sea ' is 
 explained as the sea of Galilee ; but no commentator has succeeded 
 in offering a plausible explanation of ddrom. 
 
 Followirig on the notice of the fortunes of Dan, the statement is 
 made that ' the Amorites persisted in dwelling in Har-heres, in 
 Aijalon, and in Shaalbim ; j^et the hand of the house of Joseph 
 prevailed, and they became labour-gangs' (v. 35).^ The only one 
 of these cities which has been certainly identified is Aijalon, the 
 modern Yal6 on the southern side of the vale into which the ]iass 
 of Beth-horon opens out (the vale of Aijalon, Joshua x. 12). The other 
 cities were doubtless in the same district, and must have formed, 
 with Gezer and Jerusalem, a belt of strongholds more or less 
 shutting off the Joseph-tribes from Judah on the south. This con- 
 cludes our information from this old J document, in so far as it 
 concerns the settlement of Israel within the land of Canaan. 
 
 The conception which we have formed from our survey of this 
 old narrative of Israel's settlement in Canaan may be summarized, 
 then, as follows : In the southern Hill-country the tribe of Judah, 
 with certain Kenizzite (Caleb, Othniel) and North Arabian (Kenite) 
 elements which were subsequently reckoned as part of the tribe, 
 and with the tribe of Simeon, makes its way by gradual conquest, 
 especially in the Negeb ; but is debarred from expansion into the 
 western maritime plain by the 'Philistines with their iron chariots, 
 and has in the Hill-country to the north the Jebusite stronghold of 
 Jerusalem still unreduced, and, we may suppose, to some extent at 
 least, dominating the district in its vicinity. In the centre the 
 Joseph-tribes successfully occupy the Hill-country, but are shut off 
 from the plain to the south-west by Canaanite strongholds ; the 
 Canaanites in this direction, who were themselves doubtless feeling 
 the pressure of the Philistine immigrants on their western side, 
 having succeeded in ousting the main part of Dan, and possibly 
 
 ^ Cf. Neubauer, Geographie clii Talmud, pp. 62 f. ; Buhl, Geoaraphie des alten 
 Pcdastiiia, p. 85; and references in Onomastica Sacm ('the naine-lists ' of 
 Eusebius and Jerome, ed. P. de Lagarde) to Daroma, where we find such cities 
 as Eleutheropolis, Eshtemoa, and Ziklag assigned to this region. 
 
 '^ On the use of the term ' Amorites ' cf. p. 22, n. 2.
 
 THE BIBLICAL TRADITION EXAMINED 25 
 
 also Naphtali, from positions which these tribes had at first 
 attempted to occupy, and in compelling them to seek a fresh home 
 in the extreme north. North of the Joseph-tribes is a belt of 
 Canaanite cities extending right across the land where the Hill- 
 country falls to the plain of Esdraelon, and continued to the coast 
 in 'the maritime plain south of Carmel. North of this, again, the 
 remaining west-Jordan tribes live as best they can among the 
 Canaanites whose strong cities they are (so far as our information 
 goes) quite unable to reduce. Dan indeed succeeds in obtaining a 
 new home in the far north by right of conquest ; but Zebulun and 
 Naphtali, in so far as they eventually gained a position of pre- 
 dominance, seem to have done so by peaceful penetration rather 
 than by more drastic means. ^ Aslier always remains subordinate 
 to the Canaanites upon the northern coast-land (the Phoenicians). 
 Issachar is unmentioned in this narrative, probably through acci- 
 dental editorial omission; but, if we may repair this omission 
 through the allusion to this tribe in 'the Blessing of Jacob', 
 Gen. xlix. 14, 15, it seems to have been no better off than Asher, 
 for there we read : 
 
 ' Issachar is a strong ass, 
 Couching down between the sheep-folds: 
 And he saw a resting-place that it was good, 
 And the land that it was pleasant ; 
 So he bowed his shoulder to bear, 
 And became a toiling labour-gang.' 
 
 In later times the population of this northern district remained 
 largely foreign. It is called by Isaiah (viii. 23) OHU hag-goyim, 
 ' the circuit {or district) of the heathen ' ; and is elsewhere dis- 
 tinguished as hag-Gdlil, 'the circuit' (Joshua xx. 7, xxi. 82; 
 1 Chron, vi. 61 ; 1 Kings ix. 11), i.e. the Galilee of New Testament 
 times. 
 
 Comparing this ancient presentation of the character of Israel's 
 settlement in Canaan with that which we have in Joshua i-xii as 
 edited by R^, it is obvious (1) that the two cannot stand side by 
 side as equally authentic narratives of the course of events, and 
 (2) that, in making our choice between the two presentations, we 
 are bound to attach far greater weight to that which pictures the 
 conquest as gradual and partial than to the other which conceives 
 of it as comparativel}^ thorougligoing and complete. For, sup- 
 posing the theory of K^ in Joshua to be correct, we can offer no 
 
 ' Cf. however the interpretation of the tradition as to the battle with Jabin, 
 king of Hazor, and his allies oflered on p. 53.
 
 26 ISRAEL'S SETTLEMENT IN CANAAN 
 
 explanation why the theory of J in Judges i should ever have been 
 put forward ; but, on the other hand, supposing the account of the 
 old J document to represent the historical course of events, we can 
 explain the existence of R^'s theory as the reading of the conditions 
 of a later time (David's reign and onwards) into the period of Israel's 
 first occupation of the Promised Land. It is even more obvious that 
 we cannot make use of the Priestly document^ incorporated in 
 Joshua xiii. 15-xxi. 42, which defines the heritages of each of the 
 tribes, as historical evidence for the state of afiairs existing at the 
 close of Joshua's lifetime. This document is of immense value for 
 the topographical information which it affords, and as an indication 
 of the districts occupied by the different tribes at a period when 
 Israel became practically dominant in Palestine and the tribes had 
 been welded into a nation, i.e., we may say approximately, from 
 the r^ign of David and onwards ; but the view which regards 
 Joshua as settling by lot the districts to be occupied by the tribes 
 in such a thorough and final manner as to define with precision the 
 boundaries between the diSerent heritages, is of a piece witli the 
 view which supposes the whole of Palestine with the exception of 
 the maritime plain occupied by the Philistines and Phoenicians to 
 have fallen completely into the hands of the Israelites as the fruits 
 of Joshua's victories — a view which, as we have seen in the light of 
 earlier evidence, does not represent the historical course of events. 
 
 ^ This document, though of the same character and age as the document P in 
 the Pentateuch, cannot be shown to have belonged originally to the same 
 source. It may very well have originally formed an independent document. 
 The part which is borne by the Priestly writer in Joshua seems to be somewhat 
 different to that which is fulfilled by P in the Pentateuch. In. Gen. -Num. the 
 narrative of P is to a large extent complete in itself, and forms as it were the 
 framework of the narrative. In Joshua i-xii, on the other hand, the traces of 
 the Priestly hand are comparatively insignificant, amounting in all to some 
 10| verses.
 
 LECTURE II 
 
 THE BIBLICAL TRADITION EXAMINED 
 
 {Continuation) 
 
 In my first lecture I contrasted the picture of Israel's settlement 
 in Canaan drawn by the old J document in Judges i with that 
 which we find in Joshua i-xii as edited by R°. We noticed that, 
 while the former represents this settlement as gradual and partial 
 in character, affected mainly by the efforts of individual tribes, 
 and only meeting at first with a very limited measure of success, 
 the latter exhibits it as a well-organized and victorious campaign 
 of the whole of the Israelite tribes under the leadership of Joshua, 
 resulting comparatively speedily in the reduction of all Canaan 
 from south to north, with the exception of the sections of the 
 maritime plain and coast occupied by the Philistines and 
 Phoenicians ' and the Lebanon - district with its immediate 
 environs. Our conclusion was that J's view is more nearly 
 authentic than that of R° in the Book of Joshua, the latter resulting 
 from the reading of the conditions of later ages, from David 
 onwards, into the earlier history of Israel in Canaan. If, however, 
 R°'s conception of the thoroughgoing character of the conquest 
 and settlement of the tribes under Joshua was not to be regarded 
 as historical, still less were we able to accept as historical the theory 
 of the Priestly document in Joshua xiii. 15-xxi. 42, which regards 
 the accurate delimitation of the whole of Canaan among the tribes 
 as Joshua's crowning achievement. 
 
 "We now have to notice that there is one particular in which the 
 J narrative of Judges i seems, as it stands, to agree with the con- 
 ception of the Deuteronomic redactor and the Priestly writer in 
 the Book of Joshua. The tribes of Israel, however isolated and 
 single-handed they may appear according to this narrative in 
 winning each a footing for itself, yet seem to be pictured as starting 
 from a common point in the Jordan-valley — Gilgal (Judges ii. 1) 
 or Jericho (Judges i. 16), and as having each its special heritage 
 predetermined by lot, and therefore, we may assume, under the 
 direction of a common leader and arbiter, viz. Joshua. Judah, at
 
 28 ISRAEL'S SETTLEMENT IN CANAAN 
 
 any rate, is pictured as sajang to Sinneon his brother, ' Go up with 
 me into my lot, that we may fight against the Canaanites, and I 
 also will go up with thee into thy lot ' (v. 3). 
 
 There exist weighty reasons for holding this conception of an 
 early organized unity of the tribes as the reading of later conditions 
 back into a period when they were not so existent. Evidence, 
 when carefully weighed, seems to postulate the conclusion that 
 Joshua was not the leader across Jordan of a united body of twelve 
 tribes, but of a certain section only — the Joseph-tribes, and that 
 the remaining tribes entered Canaan and won their heritages by 
 other means and at other periods. The evidence for this conclusion 
 depends partly upon internal Biblical indications and partly upon 
 the external indications supplied by archaeology. The latter we 
 shall have to notice in the final lecture. To-day we must more 
 closely examine the Biblical evidence ; and we will begin by taking 
 two outstanding instances in which tribal settlements clearly seem 
 to have been made independently of Joshua. 
 
 The account of the conquest of Arad ^ in the Negeb by Judah 
 and Simeon, which is given in Judges i. 16, 17, cannot be considered 
 apart from the very similar narrative which is found in Num. 
 xxi. 1-3 (J). This latter narrative states that, during the period 
 of Israel's sojourn in the wilderness, the king of Arad advanced 
 against them, apparently because they were encroaching upon his 
 territory, fought against them, and took some of them prisoners. 
 Israel thereupon vowed a vow to Yahweh that, if Yahweh would 
 deliver up the Canaanites into their hands they would place their 
 cities under a ban (hereTn), and utterly destroy every inhabitant. 
 On the successful issue of the battle the vow was performed ; and 
 the name of the district was thereafter known as Hormah, a name 
 in which there is an assumed connexion with herein. 
 
 This narrative, which implies a northward advance of Israel into 
 the Negeb, is at variance with the preceding narrative in Numbers 
 (xx. 14-21 JE), which seems to pictui'e the whole of the Israelites 
 as turning southwards fsom Kadesh in order to compass and avoid 
 the land of Edom. It is also difficult to understand why an 
 immediate settlement in the conquered territory was not effected 
 by at least a portion of the Israelites, when the whole of the 
 Canaanites inhabiting it had been put to the sword. The author 
 
 ^ The modern Tell Arad, described by Robinson {Biblical Researches in Pales- 
 tine, 3rd ed., ii, p. 101) as a ' barren-looking eminence rising above the country- 
 round '. The site lies seventeen miles nearly due south of Hebron.
 
 THE BIBLICAL TRADITION EXAMINED 29 
 
 of the introduction to Deuteronomy, who apparently bases his 
 information upon E, gives, in i. 41-6, an account of a disorganized 
 attempt made by the IsraeHtes to conquer the Negeb, after the 
 failure of the mission of the spies, and against the express command 
 of Moses. This was repulsed by ' the Amorite who inhabited that 
 Hill-country ', Israel being put to the rout, and beaten down ' in 
 Seir as far as Hormah'. This narrative corresponds with Num. 
 xiv. 40-5, which apparently combines elements from J as well as 
 from E, and in which the foe appears not as ' the Amorite ', but as 
 ' the Amalekite and the Canaanite ' (vv. 43, 45). No mention is 
 made in Deuteronomy of Israel's subsequent success, and their 
 extirpation of the inhabitants of the district ; and we are probably 
 correct in inferring that these details were not contained in the 
 E source. 
 
 The question is further complicated by the account of the 
 conquest of Arad which occurs in Judges i. 16, 17. Here it is the 
 tribes of Judah and Simeon, together with the Kenites, who are 
 related to have effected the conquest, moving southwards from the 
 City of Palm trees (i. e. Jericho) subsequently to the passage of the 
 Jordan under Joshua. As in the narrative of Numbers, however, 
 the origin of the name Hormah is explained by the fact that the 
 Canaanites inhabiting a city (previously named Zephath) were 
 smitten, and the city placed under the ban and utterly destroyed. 
 
 The narratives of Num. xxi. 1-3 and Judges i. 16, 17 are obviously 
 parallel, and cannot, as they stand, be reconciled. It is easy to 
 supply a reason for the occurrence of the narrative of Judges as 
 a duplicate to that of Numbers, viz. the view that all conquests and 
 annexations of Canaamte territory by Israel took place under the 
 direction of Joshua as part of a single organized campaign, and 
 that no settlement of Israelite tribes in any part of Canaan can ex 
 hypothesi have taken place prior to, or apart from, this one big 
 movement ; but, if the narrative of Judges be taken to be correct 
 in its present position, it is not easy to divine why the narrative 
 of Numbers should have pictured an incident of Joshua's cam- 
 paign — the outcome of a movement southivard from Jericho — as 
 taking place during Israel's stay at Kadesh-Barnea, as the result of 
 a northward movement from that district. 
 
 Adopting, then, the view that the position of the narrative as it 
 stands in Numbers is the more correct, and that the conquest of 
 Arad in the Negeb took place through a tribal movement northward 
 from the neighbourhood of Kadesh, the infei'ence becomes plausible 
 that this movement was effected, as related in Judges, by the tribes
 
 30 ISRAEL'S SETTLEMENT IN CANAAN 
 
 of Judah and Simeon in alliance with the Kenites. It is a well- 
 known fact that the tribe of Judah consisted of mixed elements : 
 the genealogy of 1 Chron. ii includes among the descendants of 
 Judah the North Arabian tribes of the Kenites and Jei'ahmeelites, 
 and the clan of Caleb which was of Kenizzite, i. e. of Edomite, 
 origin (cf. Gen. xxxvi. 11,15, 42). Whether or not these clans origin- 
 ally formed an integral part of the tribe of Judah, it is clear that 
 so early as the days of David they were regarded as standing in a 
 very intimate relation to the tribe. In 1 Sam. xxvii. 7 ff., which 
 relates David's stay as an outlaw with Achish, king of Gath, we 
 read that David made pretence to Achish that his occasional raids 
 were directed ' against the Negeb of Judah, and against the Negeb 
 of the Jerahmeelites, and against the Negeb of the Kenites ' ; and 
 Achish remarks to himself with satisfaction, ' He hath made his 
 people Israel utterly to abhor him ; therefore he shall be my servant 
 for ever.' Again, in 1 Sam. xxx. 26-31, David sends presents 'of 
 the spoil of the enemies of Yahweh ' to the Judaeans of the Negeb, 
 including the Jerahmeelites and the Kenites. 
 
 If, then, clans which originally inhabited the region south of the 
 Negeb are subsequently found occupying the Negeb and forming 
 part of the tribe of Judah, what is more probable than that this 
 change of locality was effected through conquests gained in the 
 Negeb by a movement directly northwards, as is suggested by the 
 narrative of Num. xxi. 1-3 ? 
 
 We seem, in fact, to be upon the track of an ancient Calibbite 
 tradition, embodied in the Judaean document J, which originally 
 narrated the way in which this northward movement was effected 
 by the clan of Caleb, and probably other kindred clans. ^ It may 
 be conjectured that this tradition lies at the bottom of the older 
 (JE) narrative of the mission of the spies which is combined with 
 the P narrative in Num. xiii and xiv. In this older narrative (in 
 contrast to that of P) it is the Negeb only which is explored ; Caleb 
 is the only spy who is mentioned by name ; and it is Caleb only 
 who maintains, against the opinion of the other spies, that the 
 conquest of the district is quite a feasible undertaking, in spite of 
 the race of giants — the sons of Anak— inhabiting it : 'We can easily 
 go up and possess it,' he says, ' for we are well able to overcome 
 it ' (Num. xiii. 30).^ 
 
 1 Cf. Stanley A. Cook, Critical Notes on 0. T. History, pp. 38 f., 81 f. 
 
 * P's narrative of the spies, as compared with that of JE, is an instructive 
 example of the reading back into earlier history of the conception of the 
 organic unity of the twelve tribes, as realized in later times. While in JE the
 
 THE BIBLICAL TRADITION EXAMINED 31 
 
 As a matter of fact, the conquest of these sons or clans of Anak 
 and their cities is directly ascribed to Caleb in Joshua xv. 14-19 = 
 Judges i. 20, 10 b (in part), 11-15, from the narrative of J. Is it 
 not, then, at least a plausible theory that the original Calibbite 
 story related that Caleb, after first spying out the Negeb, then 
 proceeded to go up and conquer it 1 
 
 It seems probable that the present form of the combined JE 
 narrative of the spies, which makes the project of conquest fail in 
 spite of Caleb's protests, is due to the theory that the conquest of 
 any part of Canaan did not take place until the country as a whole 
 was invaded by a combined movement from the east made by the 
 whole of the tribes under the leadership of Joshua. This theory, 
 as we have seen, accounts for the present form of Judges i. 16, 17, 
 which makes the conquest of the Negeb to have been effected 
 through a movement which took its start from Jericho. 
 
 It is the Judaean document J which embodies the Calibbite 
 tradition in Num. xxi. 1-3. The Ephraimite E, on the other hand 
 (which is naturally the principal repository of the Joshua-tradition), 
 from which is drawn the narrative which is found in Deut. i. 41-6, 
 while mentioning the defeat of the Israelites, knows nothing, or at 
 any rate will have nothing, of the subsequent victory as narrated 
 by J. 
 
 Our inference, then, is that clans which went to form the tribe 
 of Judah (including North Arabian clans then or subsequently 
 embodied in the tribe) advanced northward from Kadesh-Barnea ; 
 and, in combination with the remnant of the tribe of Simeon 
 (which, as we shall see later, after a disastrous attempt to effect 
 a settlement in Central Palestine, appears to have moved south- 
 ward), conquered the territory of Arad, and settled down in it, 
 afterwards advancing their conquests farther north, into the 
 country which is known to us later on as the Hill-country of 
 Judah. 
 
 If this inference be correct, it will help to explain to us a very 
 
 number of spies is not mentioned and only Caleb is named, in P they are 
 twelve, one from every tribe (so in Deut. i. 23), and their names are given ; in 
 JE they confine their investigations to the Negeb and the Hill-country to its 
 immediate north, as far as Hebron (xiii. 22), but according to P they explore 
 the land ' from the wilderness of Zin unto Rehob, to the entering in of Hamath ' 
 (xiii. 21), i. e. the whole of the territory which subsequently belonged tolsrael, 
 when the kingdom was at the zenith of its prosperity (the reigns of David 
 and Solomon). For an analysis of the narrative cf. Carpenter and Harford- 
 Battersby, Hexateuch, ii, pp. 204 tf. ; Gray, NuDibers {Internat. Crit. Comm.^, 
 pp. 138 ff.
 
 32 ISRAEL'S SETTLEMENT IN CANAAN 
 
 striking fact in the later history, viz. the isolation of Judah and 
 Simeon from the rest of the tribes. From the Song of Deborah, 
 which celebrates the great victory over the forces of Sisera, it is 
 clear that an organized attempt was made on that occasion to unite 
 the tribes of Israel against the Canaanites. Ten tribes, including 
 the tribes from the east of Jordan, are mentioned, either for praise 
 as having taken part in the contest, or for blame as having held 
 aloof. Judah and Simeon alone remain unnoticed. We must 
 infer, therefore, that at that period they were so far isolated from 
 the rest of the tribes that they were not even expected to take 
 part in the common interests of Israel, and therefore received no 
 call to arms. This single instance is in itself so striking that we 
 need do no more than allude briefly in passing to the fierce rivalry 
 which is pictured as existing between the men of Israel and the 
 men of Judah in the days of David (2 Sam. xix. 41-3), and to the 
 fact that the superficial union between Judah and the rest of the 
 tribes which was effected under Saul, David, and Solomon, was 
 readily dissolved at the beginning of Rehoboam's reign. 
 
 Another striking instance in which our old J narrative ascribes 
 to Joshua's initiative a movement which almost certainly took place 
 independently of him — in this case at a later period— is seen in the 
 migration of clans of Manasseh across the Jordan from west to 
 east. The evidence which we have to notice concerns the important 
 clan of Manasseh which bore the name of Machir. Machir is men- 
 tioned in the redactional passage Joshua xvii. 1 b. 2 R^ as the first- 
 born son of Manasseh, and in Num. xxvi. 29 P as the only son— a 
 description which clearly implies that it was the predominant clan 
 of its tribal group. Both passages associate Machir with the land 
 of Gilead east of Jordan : in Joshua he is ' the father of Gilead ' 
 pyS^n ' the Gilead ', i. e. clearly the district and not a person), and is 
 termed ' a man of war ', possessing ' the Gilead and the Bashan '. 
 In the same passage of Numbers (vv. 30 &.) six grandsons (sons of 
 Gilead) are assigned to Machir, of whom at any rate Shechem ^ 
 and I'ezer, i. e Abi'ezer (cf. Joshua xvii. 2), pertained to the territory 
 of the u'estera division of Manasseh. In Joshua xvii. 1 b. 2 we 
 find that the six grandsons of ^lachir according to P in Numbers 
 are set down as his younger brothers. 
 
 If this late evidence were all the information which we possessed 
 with regard to Machir. we should naturally infer that this pre- 
 
 ^ Vocalized ^~p, whereas the city is always Uy^' ; but the identity of the two 
 caimot be doubted.
 
 THE BIBLICAL TRADITION EXAMINED 33 
 
 dominant section of Manasseh settled first in Gilead, and that it 
 was only subsequently that some of its clans made their way into 
 central Canaan west of Jordan. If, however, the reconstruction of 
 the original J narrative of the tribal settlement in Canaan which we 
 adopted in the first lecture ^ is substantially correct, and Num. xxxii. 
 39, 41, 42 forms the sequel of Joshua xvii. 14 ff". which certainly 
 belongs to this narrative, then Manasseh first of all effected a 
 settlement in the Hill-country west of Jordan, and it was only 
 subsequently to this that the clan of Machir, together with Jair 
 and Nobah, finding their west-Jordanic territory too exiguous, 
 pushed their way to the east of Jordan and made settlements there, 
 acting, as we have seen (according to this narrative), at the advice 
 of Joshua. 
 
 There is, however, another reference to Machir which is most 
 important of all, since it comes from a document which is regarded, 
 on good grounds, as contemporary with the events which it narrates. 
 The Song of Deborah alludes to Machir among the patriotic tribes 
 which responded to the call to arms. The passage in the poem 
 (Judges V. 13-15) which refers to these tribes runs, as I read it,^ as 
 follows : 
 
 Then down to the gates gat the nobles ; 
 Yahweh's folk gat them down mid the heroes. 
 From Ephraim they spread out on the Vale ; 
 ' After thee, Benjamin ! ' mid thy clansmen. 
 From Machir came down the commanders, 
 And from Zebulun men wielding the truncheon. 
 And thy princes, Issachar, were with Deborah ; 
 And Naphtali was leal to Barak : 
 To the vale he was loosed at his heel. 
 
 Here we have Machir mentioned among west-Jordanic tribes, 
 immediately after the other Joseph-tribes, Ephraim and Benjamin. 
 It can hardly be doubted that the allusion is to west Manasseh. If 
 this is not the case, there is no allusion at all to this part of 
 Manasseh ; and supposing that a tribe so intimately associated with 
 the scene of the battle had refused its aid, it would certainly have 
 been bitterly censured in the Song. On the other hand, Gilead east 
 of Jordan is mentioned, independently of Machir, and is censured 
 for holding aloof (v. 17) ; the reference probably being to the tribe 
 of Gad, which inhabited the southern portion of Gilead (south of 
 
 1 Cf. pp. 20 f. 
 
 ^ For the emendations adopted in this passage cf. Burney, Judges, ad loc. 
 B. D
 
 34 ISRAELS SETTLEMENT IN CANAAN 
 
 the Jabbok). We seem, therefore, to have choice of two hypotheses. 
 Either the term ' Machir ' isused in the Song, by poetic licence, of 
 Manasseh as a whole, and here refers to west Manasseh to the 
 exclusion of Machir in Gilead ; or, the Manassite settlements at this 
 period were west of Jordan only ; and the migration of Manassite 
 clans (Machir, Jair, Nobah) to the east of Jordan, which the J 
 narrative of the settlement supposes to have been carried out under 
 the direction of Joshua, really only took place later than the victory 
 of Barak and Deborah. This latter hypothesis is certainly to be 
 preferred ; and, if correct, it forms a second illustration of the fact 
 that our old J narrative of the settlement assigns to the direction 
 of Joshua movements which were really undertaken independently 
 of him, and at a different period. 
 
 These facts being so, we now have to ask what credence we can 
 attach to the tradition of an Israelite invasion of conquest from the 
 east of Jordan under the leadership of Joshua. That Joshua is a 
 genuinely historical figure, and that he actually did lead tribes across 
 Jordan to the conquest of central Canaan, I see not the slightest 
 reason to question. The combined J E tradition of a thrust from 
 the east right across the Hill-countrj'', along the line marked out by 
 Jericho, Ai, Gibeon, Beth-horon, the vale of Aijalon, is certainly not 
 pure invention. It may very likely have gained accretions and 
 embellishments during the oral stage, in the course of telling and 
 retelling ; but that there underlies it a substratum of actual histor}' 
 is inherently probable to say the least. This much might be 
 affirmed with some confidence if we were dependent merely upon 
 J and E with the lono- course of oral transmission which must be 
 presupposed for the traditions which they offer us relating to these 
 early times. It must not, however, be overlooked that we have, in 
 Joshua X. 12, 13 (probably from the narrative of E), one of those 
 precious fragments from an ancient song-book which we meet with 
 here and there in the old narratives. The narrator tells us that, 
 during the pursuit of the Amorites, Joshua said in the sight 
 of Israel, 
 
 ' " Sun, over Gibeon halt ! 
 And thou moon o'er the vale of Aijalon ! " 
 Then halted the sun, and the moon stood still. 
 Till the folk requited its foes ; ' 
 
 and he adds the comment that the passage is derived from a written 
 source, the Book of Jashar, from which are also derived David's 
 Lament over Saul and Jonathan, 2 Sam. i. 17 ff.. and (according
 
 THE BIBLICAL TRADITION EXAMINED 35 
 
 to the LXX text *) the words ascribed to Solomon at the dedication 
 of the Temple in 1 Kings viii. 12, 18. Though the compilation of 
 the Book of Jashar is obviously not earlier than the reign of 
 Solomon (assuming it to be a fact that 1 Kings viii. 12, 13 was 
 drawn from it), yet many of the poems contained in it were doubt- 
 less indefinitely ancient, and are more likely than prose-narratives 
 to have been handed down substantially unchanged. Whether it be 
 the product of a ballad-maker who sang of the traditions of a much 
 earlier time, or (as is quite possible) a contemporary composition 
 like the Song of Deborah and David's Lament, tlie poetical frag- 
 ment in any case offers us an additional source of confirmation for 
 the events to which it refers, and that in written form certainly 
 older than the prose-traditions of J and E. 
 
 Who, then, were the tribes that, under the leadership of Joshua, 
 made this bold and comparatively successful bid for supremacy in 
 Canaan by force of arms ? Not Judah and Simeon in the south, 
 as we have seen. Hardly, again, the tribes which Judges i simply 
 pictures as there in Canaan maintaining a precarious footing in the 
 midst of the Canaanites, whose fortified cities they could not reduce, 
 and to whom they appear at first, to some extent at least, to have 
 been subordinate. The fact is surely noteworthy that, apart from 
 Judah and Simeon (with whom we have dealt), the only tribes to 
 whom our old J narrative attributes any conquest are the central 
 group, the Joseph-tribes, whom we find attacking and capturing 
 Bethel, two or three miles north-west of Ai, which was captured, 
 according to the Joshua-narrative, by Joshua's forces. The passage 
 in Judges i certainly seems to picture an independent attack made 
 by the Joseph-tribes upon the Hill-country, to which they go ivp, 
 i. e. presumably, from the Jordan-valley after the passage of the 
 river; 2 and it is not improbable that it originally formed part of 
 a longer account in which this section of Israel carried out its 
 campaign under the leadership of Joshua. This is the view of 
 Budde, who suggests that J's narrative originally ran, ' And the 
 house of Joseph went up to Ai ', and then followed on with an 
 account of the capture of Ai, as in Joshua viii, before mentioning 
 
 ^ This adds the words ovk Ibov avrrj yiypairrai iv /3i/3Xi&) (var. iir\ fii^Xiov) r^f 
 coSj}? ; Here t»j? <u o^? = T'K'n, a transposition of "IK'M. 
 
 "^ This is the natural implication of the verb vj?''1 (cf. cli. ii. 1, where we 
 should read 'Bethel' in place of ' Bochim '). The expression 'to go uji' is 
 sometimes used, however, in a more general way of a military expedition : 
 cf. Judges xii. 3, xviii. 9 ; 1 Sam. vii. 7 ; Isa. xxi. 2, xxxvi. 10. 
 
 d2
 
 36 ISRAEL'S SETTLEMENT IN CANAAN 
 
 the reconnaissance and capture of Bethel.^ In the statement of 
 V. 22, 'and Yahweh was with them,' some uncertainty attaches to 
 the reading ' Yahweh ', if we are to assign any importance to 
 the evidence of one of the two Greek versions reprasenting the text 
 of the LXX. which offers the reading ' Judah ' in its place.^ Budde 
 has suggested, with some boldness yet not without considerable 
 plausibility, that under both readings, 'Yahweh' and 'Judah', 
 there lies an original ' Joshua ' — ' and Joshua was with them '. A 
 sufficient reason for the excision of the name of Joshua, and the 
 substitution of the reading of our text, is furnished by the fact 
 that the late editor who prefixed Judges i. 1-ii. 5 to the Book of 
 Judges, and who, as we have seen, was responsible for a number 
 of additions to the narrative, professes to be giving an account of 
 events which happened ' after the death of Joshua ' (i. 1). 
 
 Assuming, then, that it was the Joseph-tribes only that were led 
 by Joshua across Jordan to the conquest of a settlement in Canaan, 
 it follows in all probability^ that, if tradition is correct in making 
 Joshua the successor of Moses in the leadership of Israel, the tribes 
 whom Moses led out of Egypt at the Exodus were not the whole 
 of Israel as the term was subsequently understood ; but that certain 
 elements which eventually formed part of the nation must have 
 gained their footing by other means and at other periods. This is 
 a conclusion which, as we shall see in the next lecture, seems to be 
 forced upon us by external evidence ; and it agrees with the con- 
 ception, such as it is, which we gather from Judges i of the other 
 tribes that are mentioned — a conception which suggests that they 
 were settlers on sufferance among the Canaanites who held the 
 fortified cities, and that it was not till they had made their way as 
 much by racial vigour and productivity as by anything else, that 
 they eventually gained the predominance. We shall probably not 
 be far wrong if we picture them at first as forming part of the 
 floating semi-nomadic population, pressing in from the barren steppes 
 to the north-east, which has always formed an element in the 
 settled life of Canaan. This at any rate is the conception which 
 we form of the position of Israel in Canaan from the patriarchal 
 legends of Genesis ; and it is to these legends that we shall have in 
 
 ^ Cf. Richter und Samuel, pp. 57 f. 
 
 ^ 'lov6as is the reading of Abcgklntvwxz(mg)lLEus (notation of Brooke and 
 McLean). This group represents the version which is the more independent of 
 the Massoretic text, and which offers many readings which are intrinsically of 
 high value (cf. Burney, Judges, Introd. p. cxxvii). The other version reads Kvpios.
 
 THE BIBLICAL TRADITION EXAMINED 37 
 
 some degree to extend our investigations, if, as has now become 
 evident, we cannot limit it to the era which begins with Joshua's 
 invasion. 
 
 Let us first examine the earlier fortunes of Simeon, the tribe 
 which we have already found in the extreme south of the Negeb, 
 seeking, fn alliance with Judah, a more settled footing in southern 
 Canaan through a northward move against the king of Arad. In 
 the story of Gen. xxxiv Simeon, together with Levi, gains an un- 
 enviable notoriety through a treacherous massacre of the Canaanite 
 B^ne-Hamor inhabiting the city of Shechem in the Hill-country of 
 central Canaan. The story is one in which beyond a doubt we are 
 dealing with the doings of tribes under the guise of individuals. 
 Shechem, the son of Hamor, who contracts an alliance with Jacob's 
 daughter Dinah, is clearly not an individual, but the personification 
 . of the city whose name he bears. We can hardly picture two men 
 effecting, without extraneous aid, the massacre of all the males of 
 one of the most famous cities of ancient Canaan, even if these latter 
 were placed by circumstances in a semi-defenceless state. The terms 
 of Jacob's expostulation with his 'sons' let us at once into the 
 true meaning of the tale : ' Ye have troubled me. to make me stink 
 among the inhabitants of the land, among the Canaanites and 
 Perizzites, I being a few men ; and they will gather themselves 
 together against me and smite me ; and I shall be destroyed, I and 
 my house ' {v. 30).^ The inference which we may justly draw as to 
 the true meaning of the tale is as follows : The small Israelite tribe 
 of Dinah enters into terms of friendly alliance and intermarriage with 
 the B^ne-Hamor of Shechem, an event which excites the resent- 
 ment of the tribes of Simeon and Levi.^ Under cover of friendly 
 overtures these two latter tribes treacherously attack the Sheche- 
 mites when off their guard, and effect a general niassacre. That 
 the action of the Simeon and Levi tribes was repudiated by the 
 remainder of Israel is apparent from Jacob's words which have 
 just been quoted; but it is still more evident from the section 
 dealing with this tribe in the old poem of Gen. xlix, a passage 
 
 1 We here shift the principal break in the verse CAthnah) from M1D31 
 to "IDDD ^riD, and connect the circumstantial clause 'J1 ''J^?^ with the words 
 which precede it, as is natural to do. 
 
 ^ It is of course possible, as suggested by Dr. Skinner {Genesis in Internat. 
 Crit. Comm., p. 421), that Dinah was not a weak Israelite clan, but that 'a 
 literal outrage of the kind described was the cause of the racial quarrel which 
 ensued'. Skinner refers to Doughtj, Arabia Deseiia, ii, ]}. 114, for a modern 
 parallel.
 
 38 ISRAEL'S SETTLEMENT IN CANAAN 
 
 M'liicli throws light on the ultimate issue of the treacherous act, 
 suppressed in the prose-narrative. 
 
 The opening couplet of these verses (vv. 5-7) offer us one of the 
 great cruces of Old Testament textual criticism ; and though many 
 attempts have been made to solve it, no one of these can be re- 
 garded as affording satisfaction. It is perhaps too much to hope 
 that I have succeeded in solving finally a problem which has 
 puzzled the ingenuity of Hebrew scholars for two thousand years ; 
 but I trust that I may be thought at any rate to have thrown some 
 further light upon it. I read the passage thus : 
 
 ' Simeon and Levi are hyenas ; 
 Fully have they shown the ruthlessness of their stock. 
 Into their council let not my soul enter ! 
 In their assembl}^ let not m}^ spirit ^ join ! 
 For wrathfully they slew a man, 
 And wantonly they hamstrung an ox. 
 Cursed be their wrath, for it was fierce, 
 And their fury, for it was cruel : 
 I will divide them in Jacob, 
 And scatter them in Israel.' 
 
 Here the emendation 'hyenas' (°''nN) for 'brethren' (Q'''!'^) has 
 already been suggested by Dr. Ball.^ It is supported by the 
 
 ^ Reading ^15?. lit- ' ™y liver ' (LXX ra fjrraTd fiov), for ni^B ' my glory ' — 
 a correction which is doubtless to be made also in Ps. vii. 6, xvi. 9, xxx. 13, 
 Ivii. 9, cviii. 2. Among the Hebrews, as among the Babylonians (cf. the use of 
 hahittu), the liver seems to have been regarded as the seat of feeling and mental 
 disposition. 
 
 " Cf. Genesis in SBOT., p. 107. D'^nx only occurs once besides in the Old 
 Testament (Isa. xiii. 21), where it denotes an animal haunting desolate ruins. 
 The word is perhaps the same as the Babylonian ahu, a synonym of the 
 Sumerian UR-BAR-RA (Briinnow 11274) which may mean 'savage dog' 
 (animal of the dog-chiss) — a suitable designation for the hyena— if BAR has 
 here the sense ahii ' hostile', Ja mugini 'not amenable ', which is assigned to it 
 in syllabaries. The reference to the UR-BAR-RA which one naturally calls to 
 mind occurs in the Babylonian Flood-legend (Gilgames-epic XI, col. iv, IL 20 ff.), 
 where the god Ea, in expostulating with the god Enlil for causing the Flood, 
 says: 
 
 ' Instead of thy causing a flood, 
 Let lions attack and diminish mankind. 
 Instead of thy causing a flood, 
 Let UR-BAR-RA attack and diminish mankind.' 
 
 Here UR-BAR-RA (commonly read as barbaru, a synonym of ahii ; cf. Briinnow 
 11276) has been variously explained as the leopard (Ball, Zimmern) or panther 
 (Jeremias), wolf (Ungnad, Rogers, Barton), wild dog (Jensen), hyena (Sayce), 
 jackal (Delitzsch, Jastrowj. We may remark that animals of the crri-species, 
 such as the leopard, cannot be ruled out owing to the fact that Sumerian UR
 
 THE BIBLICAL TRADITION EXAMINED 39 
 
 fact that four or five of the other tribes (Judah, Issachar, Dan, 
 Benjamin, and perhaps Naphtali) are compared with animals ; and 
 it certainly relieves the difficulty of the Hebrew text, the explana- 
 tion ' brother-spirits in character and disposition ', or the like, being 
 somewhat forced. The emendation of stichos 2 (which is involved 
 in the greatest obscurity) makes but a very slight change of the 
 original,^ and offers us a good Hebrew sentence, explaining the 
 
 means ' dog ' ; the lion itself being regularly denoted by the ideogram UR-MAG 
 ('great dog'; Babylonian nesu, lahbu, nrmahhii^. Yet the leopard, though 
 one of the fiercest of beasts when wounded or cornered, and a great pest to 
 flocks, is not usually dangerous to man if unmolested, nor does it ordinarily 
 develop man-eating propensities (cf.. however, Jer. v. 6, and Roosevelt, ^/ncaw 
 Game Trails, p. 285). The jackal and wild dog are obviously inadequate to the 
 situation depicted. Wolf and hyena remain ; but the ordinary Baltylonian 
 name for wolf is zibu {= Heb. 35^*), which is written ideographical ly UH-BI-KU, 
 i. e. perhaps ' ravenous dog ' (the same group of ideograms stands for ukihi, 
 'eater'; cf. Brunnow 11239-90), or NU-UM-MA. In view of the modern 
 example cited on p. 41, n. 1 (the sleeping-sickness camp), it is clear that 
 hyenas can become a frightful ?courge to a primitive community reduced by 
 disease or famine (we have to think of children and other weaklings as much as 
 of grown men) ; and in any case, where man-eating lions abounded (as pictured), 
 we may be quite sure that hyenas would not be far off, and would form a good 
 second in carrying out the loathsome task upon which Ea suggests that the 
 beasts might be employed. 
 
 Thus the identification of nx with the hyena is not certain, though it is 
 entirely suitable. Even if Babylonian aliii could be proved to mean 'wolf, 
 this would not necessarily militate against Heb. HN meaning ' hyena ' ; for 
 while Bab. zihu, Heb. IN?, Syr. dthu, Ar. di'b denotes the wolf, the same word 
 in Ethiopic, zeeb, is applied to the hyena (cf. Dillmann, Lex. Ling. Aeth. 1056). 
 If we are right in reading D"'nN in Gen. xlix. 5, the meaning ' wolves ' is excluded 
 by the fact that Benjamin is compared with this animal (3X1) ; while the 
 meaning 'jackals' for D^nx in Isa. xiii. 21 seems equally to be excluded by the 
 occurrence of D'^iiri, the ordinary term for this beast, in v. 22. It is probable 
 that L]''y3^ means ' hyenas ' (cf. Arabic dabu') in the place-name D'y^bTn 'S 
 (1 Sam. xiii. 18) ; but this does not tell against nx denoting the same animal. 
 Cf. the analogy of the place-name D^3!?y'^, P???!^, which proves that Hebrew 
 (or Canaanite) possessed the word 3^yl^' = Arabic fa'Iab, ' fox ' ; whereas the 
 ordinary Heb. term for fox is /V'lti'. Some animals, e.g. the lion, are denoted 
 by several different names. The explanation of the name Simeon (j\]3^p) 
 as identical with the Arabic sini, an animal supposed to be the offspring of the 
 male hyena and the female wolf, might, if correct, have formed a contributory 
 reason for the Hebrew poet's taking the hyena as typical of the tribe. The 
 Arabs believe that certain men have peculiar affinities to the hyena (cf. 
 Robertson Smith, Kinship, 2nd ed., pp. 231 f., 237). 
 
 ^ In place of DH'-nnDD DDH \b3 read Dn'riiJO DDn ^^3, a change of one con- 
 sonant only (the frequently confused 1 and 'j in the unpointed text. ^??
 
 40 ISRAEL'S SETTLEMENT IN CANAAN 
 
 point of comparison with these loathsome beasts, and fitly intro- 
 ducing what follows. I take the meaning to be ' They are hj^enas ; 
 and they have exhibited the inborn hyena-characteristic (ruthless 
 ferocity of the most cowardly kind) to the utmost extent'. If, 
 however, these two tribes are compared to an animal, the analogy 
 of the other tribal comparisons leads us to expect that some habit 
 of the animal selected should be explicitly indicated, in explanation 
 of the comparison selected. We have this, e.g. in the case of 
 Judah (v. 9) : 
 
 'Judah is a lion's whelp; 
 From the kill, my son, thou art gone up: 
 He couched, he lay down like a lion, 
 And like a lioness ; who shall rouse him up ? ' 
 
 in place of v3 is presupposed by LXX (TvveTe\e(Tav, and by the paraphrase of 
 Targum Onkelos N"I13J liny (= DCn li?3). For r\^3 in the sense ' complete, 
 do to the full, exhaust the possibilities of the object denoted, cf. the applica- 
 tion to the wrath of Yahweh : e.g. Lam. iv. 11, iriDq-nN " n^3 ' Yahweh 
 hath given full play to His wrath ; ' so Ezek. v. 13, vi. 12, vii. 3, xiii. 15, xx. 8, 21. 
 ni"lptD ' origin ' or ' source of extraction ' (perhaps literally ' place of digging 
 out ' from "113 ; cf. Isa. li. 1) occurs in Ezek. xvi. 3, xxi. 35 (plural as in our 
 passage), xxix. 14 ^singular); and the rendering 'stock' or 'strain' seems 
 adequately to express the meaning. Pesh. . oo»ao ^.50 seems to be a rendering 
 of Dn^ri~i3t3[D] , and possibly Cn''ri^3D[Il] underlies the paraphrase of the 
 Targum of Onkelos, linmnnin yisn, though this may imply Dn^nin^JD?. This 
 is the opinion of Rashi, who, after explaining the difficult term from the Greek, 
 adds a reference to Ezek. xvi. 3 in connexion with the Targum-rendering 
 
 (inn "iTn^iDi i^nniSD id3 ocn ^^^2 p3i-y un: Dn-ii:o )-in'2 DnTinoro inx im 
 
 D1^p3X b\if Dinn). Ibn Ezra thinks that the term is the equivalent of ITiniaD in 
 the Ezek. passage, and supposes that the preposition 3 is implied, the sense which 
 he postulates being ' In the place of their origin ' (niT^D NIHU' ''3''y3 p3Jni 
 ':) "''' n'2 Ni*C3n 1D3 n''"3 ion Xini l^nmSD). The ordinary rendering of 
 M. T. Dri''ri^3D Don ^^3 ' Weapons of violence are their swords,' depends upon 
 the resemblance of Dn''ni3ip to Greek naxapa, and goes back ultimately to the 
 Jewish interpreters. The meaning ' swords ' cannot be i^hilologically sub- 
 stantiated either by reference to the root "I"13 ' go round ', so rounded or curved 
 weapons, i. e. scimitars (Dillmann), or to "113 ' dig ', so digging weapons 
 (Delitzsch, Prolegonieiui, p. 121 ; VoUers, Z^., xiv, p. 355) ; and, as Ball justly 
 remarks, ^ prima facie objection to the rendering is that all swords are instru- 
 ments of violence. 'Marriage-contracts' (cf. Syriac ^ajio f/f-^iJonsare) is adopted 
 by Le Clerc and others with i-eference to Gen. xxxiv. 15 ff". ; but these could 
 scarcely be described as ' weapons '. Ball suggests a aV. Xe-y. n"l3C ' plot, scheme ', 
 from m3 ' dig ' in a metaphorical sense, or (as supposed by de Dieu) from 
 Arabic 5C« ' lay plots', and reads Drin3?p Dpn ^?3 'They have accomplished
 
 THE BIBLICAL TRADITION EXAMINED 41 
 
 Similarly, we read of Benjamin (v. 27) : 
 
 ' Benjamin is a ravening wolf : 
 In the morning he devoureth the prey, 
 And at evening he divideth the spoil.' 
 
 The metaphors of the ass and serpent, applied respectively to 
 Issachar and Dan, are worked out in the same way (vu. 14, 17). 
 I believe that the hj^-ena-metaphor is carried on in the couplet 
 
 ' For wrathfully they slew a man, 
 And wantonly they hamstrung an ox.' 
 
 I have devoted some pains to investigation of the habits of these 
 animals, since their well-known cowardice suggested a doubt 
 whether they could be pictured as attacking a man, or a large 
 animal like an ox. This investigation has shown that, while they 
 are afraid of a sound and healthy man, they will not hesitate to 
 attack a man when sick and off his guard.^ We cannot fail to 
 
 the violence of their schemes.' Gunkel imagines the sense ' pits ' from the 
 same Arabic root, and emends Drihpp DOn^ ''P? ' Knavery and violence are 
 their pits.' 
 
 ^ Mr. Theodore Roosevelt, in his African Game Trails (1910), pp.-58f., states 
 that ' the hyena, too cowardly ever to be a source of danger to the hunter, is 
 sometimes a dreadful curse to the weak and helpless. . . . On occasion the hyena 
 takes to man-eating after its own fashion. Carrion-feeder though it is, in 
 certain places it will enter native huts and carry away children or even sleeping 
 adults : and where famine or disease has worked havoc among a jseople, the 
 hideous spotted beasts become bolder and prey on the survivors. For some 
 years jjast Uganda has been scourged by the sleeping-sickness, which has 
 ravaged it as in the Middle Ages the Black Death ravaged Europe. Hundreds 
 of thousands of natives have died. Every effort has been made by the Govern- 
 ment officials to cope with the disease ; and among other things sleeping- 
 sickness camps have been established, where those stricken by the dread 
 malady can be isolated and cease to be possible sources of infection to their 
 fellows. Recovery among those stricken is so rare as to be almost unknown, 
 but the disease is often slow, and months may elapse during which the diseased 
 man is still able to live his life much as usual. In the big camps of doomed 
 men and women thus established there were, therefore, many persons carrying 
 on their avocations much as in an ordinary native village. But the hyenas 
 speedily found that in many of the huts the inmates were a helpless prey. In 
 1908 and throughout the early part of 1909 they grew constantly bolder, 
 haunting these sleeping-sickness camps, and each night entering them, bursting 
 into the huts and carrying oft' and eating the dying people. To guard against 
 them, each little group of huts was enclosed by a thick hedge ; but after 
 a while the hyenas learned to break through the hedges, and continued their 
 ravages, so that every night armed sentries had to patrol the camps, and 
 every night they could be heard firing at the marauders.' The present writer 
 has been informed by Mr. C. V. A. Peel, a big game hunter of wide experience, 
 that he once saw the body of a native boy of fifteen, who when very ill was
 
 42 ISRAEL'S SETTLEMENT IN CANAAN 
 
 notice that it was in such circumstances that the two tribes are 
 pictured as attacking the men of Shechem. The story of the 
 circumcision-covenant, though belonging to a stratum of the 
 narrative which is assigned to the late document P, might well be 
 genuinely historical ; and if it was in such circumstances that the 
 treacherous attack was made, the odium of the crime would 
 natural]}' be greatly enhanced. That hyenas will, if circumstances 
 favour, attack an animal like an ox is also certain.^ We must 
 picture a pair of these beasts intent upon circumventing their 
 victim. While one engages its attention in front, the other runs in 
 behind unobserved, and bites through its hamstring, thus rendering 
 it helpless. It is characteristic of the hyena to go for the legs of 
 an animal in attacking ; ^ and its jaws are so powerful that they will 
 
 dragging himself into hospital, and was attacked and killed by a hyena when 
 he had nearly reached his destination. 
 
 Mr. Roosevelt further states (op. cit., pp. 59 f.) that 'occasionally men in full 
 vigour are attacked. . . . Selous informed me that a friend of his, Major R. T. 
 Coiyndon, then Administrator of North-Western Rhodesia, was attacked by a 
 hyena but two or three years ago. At the time Major Coryndon was lying 
 wrapped in a blanket, beside his waggon. A hyena, stealthily approaching 
 through the night, ?eized him by the hand and dragged him out of bed ; but as 
 he struggled and called out, the beast left him and ran off into the darkness. 
 In spite of his torn hand the Major was determined to get at his assailant, 
 which he felt sure would soon return. Accordingly, he went back to his bed, drew 
 his cocked rifle beside him, pointing toward his feet, and feigned sleep. When 
 all was still once more, a dim form loomed up through the uncertain light, toward 
 the foot of the bed ; it was the ravenous beast returning for his prey, and the 
 ?Jajor shot and killed it where it stood.' This anecdote has been verbally 
 corroborated to the present writer by Mr. R. T. Chicken, who is now a Com- 
 missioner in the same district. Mr. Roosevelt also mentions an instance of 
 a native hunter, who was seized by a hyena as he slept by a camp-fire, and had 
 part of his face torn off; and also a case in which a hyena entered a hut on the 
 outskirts of Nairobi, and seized and killed a native man. 
 
 ^ Mr. Roosevelt states (op. cit., p. 60) that 'hyenas not infrequently kill 
 mules and donkeys '. Canon Tristram says [Natural Hisfonj of the Bible, p. 109) 
 that 'when pressed by hunger, it will attack large animals. The ass of one 
 of m3' servants was once devoured by the hyenas in the night, while he was 
 sleeping close to it. They left nothing of it Imt the skull.' The Palestinian 
 domestic ox is no bigger than a donkey ; and both animals may constantly be 
 seen ploughing together under one yoke. Three or four hyenas together have 
 no hesitation in robbing the leopard of its prey. It is stated that the normal 
 fate of lions, when old and feeble or if badly wounded, is to be killed and 
 eaten by hyenas (cf. Roosevelt, op. cit., pp. 61, 355). 
 
 2 The writer has this on the authority of Mr. R. I. Pocock, F.Z.S., who states 
 that, when fighting among themselves, they always attack the legs. Mr. Roose- 
 velt (op. cit., p. 60) speaks of their tearing open the bellies of mules and 
 donkeys, and eating them while still alive. Mr. Peel has only observed them
 
 THE BIBLICAL TRADITION EXAMINED 43 
 
 snap bone and sinew with the greatest ease.^ 'Man' and 'ox', 
 then, are both tj'pical of the Shechemites, just as the hyenas 
 typify Simeon and Levi. If this is the true interpretation of the 
 passage, we no longer have to explain the Hebrew terms for ' man ' 
 and ' ox ' as collective ; nor are we troubled by the fact that, 
 according^ to Gen. xxxiv. 28, the two Israelite tribes did not thus 
 mutilate the literal oxen, but drove off the flocks and herds 
 as spoil. 
 
 The view put forward by some writers that we have in the 
 narrative of Gen. xxxiv a reflection of events which took place in 
 the period of the Judges, such e. g. as are narrated in the story of 
 Abimelech and the Shechemites in Judges ix, is so patently im- 
 probable that it hardly calls for discussion. Apart from the 
 consideration that the Abimelech-narrative bears intrinsic evidence 
 that it is a piece of literal history, so true to the life that we seem 
 to see every detail precisely as it occurred, whereas in Gen. xxxiv 
 the typification of tribes as individuals suggests a much remoter 
 past, we also have the very concrete fact that in Abimelech's time 
 the central Hill-country in which Shechem was situated was 
 certainly in the possession of the Joseph-tribes ; while Simeon, as 
 we have seen, was far down in the south, and Levi seems to have 
 ceased to exist as a tribal entity. There is an interesting but 
 obscure allusion in Gen. xlviii. 22 E which probably has a bearing 
 on the question. Here the aged Jacob is pictured as saying to his 
 son Joseph, ' Moreover I have given to thee one mountain-slope 
 (ht. 'shoulder', Hebrew Shechem) above thy brethren, which I took 
 from the hand of the Amorite with my sword and with my bow.' 
 This can hardly be interpreted otherwise than as an attempt to 
 explain how it was that Shechem (which is clearly denoted), which 
 once belonged to Jacob, i. e. to one or more of the Jacob-tribes, by 
 right of conquest, eventually passed into the possession of the 
 Joseph-tribes.^ Jacob bequeathed it to Joseph (so the legend ran) 
 
 attacking sheep, tied up as bait for lions, and states that they went for the 
 throat, as would be natural in killing a small defenceless animal. 
 
 ^ The hyena will crack and eat the large bones of the lion's kill, of which 
 the latter animal is unable to dispose. Cf. Sir S. W. Baker, Wild Beasts and 
 iJieit Waijs, p. 32.3. 
 
 ^ At what period subsequent to Joshua's invasion Shechem became an 
 Israelite city we cannot determine. In the time of Abimelech (Judges ix) it is 
 still in the possession of the Canaanite B^ne-Hamor, who live side by side with 
 the Manassite clans of the district in relations of mutual toleration, if not of 
 friendship. The E tradition embodied in Gen. xxxiii. 19, 1. 24-26, Exod. xiii. 
 19, Joshua xxiv. 32 speaks of rights at Shechem acquired by purchase from the
 
 44 ISRAEL'S SETTLEMENT IN CANAAN 
 
 upon his death-bed. This favours the conclusion that, at a period 
 obviously remoter than the invasion of the central Hill-country by 
 the Joseph-tribes under Joshvaa, some other section of Israel had 
 laid claim to the city. Is not this a reflection of the events of 
 patriarchal times, as related in Gen. xxxiv ? We shall see later on 
 from external evidence that this is probable. 
 
 If the Simeon and Levi tribes at one time held possession of 
 Shechem through some such circumstances as are narrated in 
 Gen. xxxiv, it is probable that their triumph over the B^ne-Hamor 
 was not very lasting. The terms of Gen. xlix. 7, 
 
 * I will divide them in Jacob, 
 And scatter them in Israel,' 
 
 suggest, in fact, speedy reprisals on the part of the Canaanites, 
 which decimated the two Israelite tribes and drove them far afield 
 to seek a footing elsewhere. When, then, we find Simeon as a small 
 tribe in the extreme south, seeking by the aid of Judah a footing in 
 the Negeb, we may justly regard this as the sequel and outcome of 
 the Shechem-incident, though how long subsequent it is not easy 
 to divine. 
 
 What became, however, of the tribe of Levi, after its association 
 with Simeon in the events of which we have been speaking ? Here 
 we touch upon one of the most vexed questions of Old Testament 
 history — the question of the circumstances in which the predatory 
 secular tribe pictured in Gen. xxxiv, xlix. 5-7 gained the position 
 of a privileged class invested with the exercise of special priestly 
 functions. The widely favoured view that there never really was 
 a tribe of Levi, but that the name ' Levite ' was the official title of 
 any one who had received a technical training for the priestly oflice, 
 whatever his tribe, seems, to my mind, to create moi'e difficulties 
 than it solves. It is based, in the main, upon the account of the 
 antecedents of the Levite of Judges xvii. 7 ff"., who, while he was 
 sojourning merely in Ephraim, i. e. holding the position of a ger or 
 
 B®ne-Hamoi', and may have an historical basis ; but the later tradition (Joshua 
 xxiv. 1 E'^J according to which Shechem appears as the rallying-place of ' all 
 Israel ' on the occasion of Joshua's farewell-charge is clearly of a piece with 
 the conception of the twelve tribes as an organic unity under the leadership 
 of Joshua, and it is difficult to regard it as any more historical than R^'s 
 account (Joshua viii. 30-35j of Joshua's proceedings in the same locality (Ebal 
 and Geriziui) in fulfilment of the provisions of Deut. xxvii. The first definitely 
 historical allusion to Shechem as an Israelite city is 1 Kings xii. 1, where it 
 figures as the centre to which ' all Israel ' resorts in order to anoint a successor 
 to Solomon.
 
 THE BIBLICAL TRADITION EXAMINED 45 
 
 stranger enjojdng certain rights of protection while living with 
 a tribe of alien origin to himself, is definitely stated to have had 
 clan-connexion with the tribe of Judah ('"'"]'''"') ^nSy'Qp^ y, 7) ; and 
 it is thought to gain support from Exod. iv. 14 (a passage which, 
 though assigned to J, must belong to a relatively late stratum of 
 that document), where Yahweh, in addressing Moses, speaks of 
 ' thy brother Aaron the Levite ' — a use of the term which, as 
 applied to Aaron in distinction from Moses, certainly seems to 
 denote profession rather than ancestry,^ Support for this view is 
 gained through certain considerations as to the meaning of the 
 name Levi, which may be explained as denoting one who has 
 attached himself to the priestly office, i. e. as we might say, a cleric 
 in distinction from a layman.^ The allusion to Levi in the so-called 
 ' Blessing of Moses ', Deut. xxxiii, a poem which probably belongs 
 to the period of the divided monarchy, stands in marked contrast 
 to the passage in the older ' Blessing of Jacob ' which we have 
 considered. In the ' Blessing of Moses ', Levi, though figuring as 
 a tribe, and on a par in this respect with the other tribes of Israel, 
 is regarded exclusively from the standpoint of his exercise of 
 priestly duties, the manipulation of the oracle of Urim and Tummim, 
 the exposition of Yahweh's mind and will (His 'judgments' and 
 His tord), and the offering of sacrifice. But when all has been said, 
 the evidence of Gen. xxxiv, xlix. 5-7 as to the early existence of a 
 purely secular tribe of Levi is too concrete to be explained away. 
 Any such assumption as the supposition that the secular tribe died 
 out and the priestly body took its place, the apparent identity in 
 name being perhaps merely fortuitous, is entirely unwarranted ; 
 and the only legitimate course, upon the evidence which we possess, 
 seems to be the holding to the Biblical tradition that a tribe 
 originally secular came, through special circumstances, to be 
 invested with priestly functions. 
 
 Is it possible to form a working theory as to the history of this 
 transition, in connexion with our investigation of the early fortunes 
 
 ^ Cf. McNeile, Westni-iister Coimnentan/ ; Driver, Cu)»b. Bible, notes ad loc. 
 
 ^ Cf. the use of the verb HI? in Num. xviii. 2, 4P, where the Levites are 
 spoken of as attached to Aaron for the service of the Tabernacle (llp^l, ^V?l). 
 The verb is used in a similar connexion in Isa. Ivi. 6, which alludes to the 
 strangers jc7w are attached (D^lpiin) to Yahweh to minister to him. The theory- 
 gains greatly in plausibility if we may assume a connexion between Leivt and 
 the term Icttvi'u (fem. lawi'at) which, according to Homniel [Ancietit Hebrew 
 Tradition, p. 278j, is used in Minaean inscriptions to denote priests and 
 priestesses of the god Wadd.
 
 46 ISRAEL'S SETTLEMENT IN CANAAN 
 
 of the tribes of Israel ? Available evidence is but slight, and is 
 much obscured by accretions representing later points of view, and 
 any such theory must therefore be largely tentative ; yet it seems 
 reasonable to suppose that the course of events may have run some- 
 what as follows. If Levi was the associate of Simeon in the treacherous 
 outrage against Shechem, and suffered together with that tribe in 
 the retribution which followed (as is suggested by Gen. xlix. 7), we 
 may reasonably conjecture that, since the tribe of Simeon was 
 driven to seek a new home in the far south, the tribe of Levi 
 may have accompanied it to the same district. The expulsion of 
 the two tribes from Shechem and its neighbourhood was doubtless 
 not accomplished without much bloodshed, and it is prol :)able there- 
 fore that both were considerably reduced in numbers. As a matter 
 of fact, we have evidence which proves that in later days the tribe 
 of Simeon was very small. The cities assigned to Simeon in 
 Joshua xix. 1-8 P fall within the territory of Judah ; and most, if 
 not all. of them are reckoned to Judah in Joshua xv. 26-32, 42 P — 
 a fact which indicates that Simeon eventually became little more 
 than an element in the Judah tribe. 
 
 We picture, then, these two small remnants of tribes settled in 
 the desert-region bordering on Egypt, in close contact, and on 
 amicable terms, with their north Arabian neighbours — Kenites, 
 Jerahmeelites, and the like — who, as we have seen,^ eventually 
 formed part of the tribe of Judah. Now we gather from Egyptian 
 inscriptions that the Semitic Bedawin tribes bordering on Egypt 
 were accustomed to move across the Egyptian frontier in time of 
 drought and famine, and were readily admitted even after the fall 
 of the Hyksos and under the restored Theban aristocracy of the 
 Eighteenth and Nineteenth Egyptian dynasties. There is one in- 
 scription in particular which is peculiarly illustrative. This belongs 
 to the reign of Haremheb, the first king of the Nineteenth dynasty, 
 or as Professor Bi-easted thinks, to one of the later kings of the 
 Eighteenth dynasty under whom Haremheb held the position of 
 general ; and is attached to a mutilated relief depicting officials 
 receiving instruction as to the reception of Asiatic refugees who, 
 in time of distress, petition a home in the domain of Pharaoh, and 
 base their request upon immemorial custom — ' after the manner of 
 your fathers' fathers since the beginning '. This, according to the 
 inscription, is granted by Pharaoh.- Simeon and Levi, living where 
 
 ' Cf. p. 30. 
 
 2 Cf. J. H. Breasted, Ancient Records of Egypt, §§ 10 fF. A similar episode 
 occurs in an inscription given in §§ 636 ff.
 
 THE BIBLICAL TRADITION EXAMINED 47 
 
 they did, would perforce be nomads ; and would doubtless, like 
 other nomad tribes of that neighbourhood, seek refuge in Egypt 
 when moved to do so through the necessity of finding a livelihood. 
 Here they would come into association with the Joseph-tribes, who 
 may have been settled in Goshen, i. e. in the district of the modern 
 Wady Tumilat just within the border, for some time previously. 
 We recall the fact that, in the Joseph-story of Genesis, Simeon is 
 mentioned as detained in Egypt at the command of Joseph 
 (Gen. xlii. 24, 36 E, xliii. 23 R'"'). This would account for the 
 birth of Moses of Levite parents in Egypt, and for the subsequent 
 events through which he escapes from Egypt as a political refugee 
 and settles in Midian,^ receives a revelation at Sinai; leads the 
 tribes out of Egypt, and conducts them to the scene of the 
 Theophany, which lay probably in the neighbourhood of Kadesh- 
 Barnea, south of the Negeb, which seems to have formed their 
 head-quarters during the wilderness-period. We may here remark 
 that the Egyptian names born by Moses and Phinehas offer valid 
 evidence both for the historical existence of the bearers and from 
 their Egyptian connexions.^ 
 
 Tradition as to the circumstances which led to the investiture of 
 
 ^ The story of Moses' escape to Midian, where he marries the daughter of a 
 Midianite chieftain and settles down for a time, is remarkably paralleled by the 
 Egyptian tale of Sinuhe, who was a political exile in the reign of Sesostris I of 
 the twelfth dynasty, some 700 years earlier. Sinuhe escapes from Egypt to a 
 region in or near Canaan and is hospitably received by the local sheikh, whose 
 daughter he eventually marries and becomes himself a sheikh of the tribe for 
 some years, after which he returns, like Moses, to Egypt. The parallel shows 
 how well within the range of historical probability the Biblical story lies. 
 Cf. Breasted, Ancient Records, i, §§ 486 ff. ; Maspero, PopnJar Stories of Ancient 
 Egypt, PP- SSflf. ; Alan Gardiner, Notes on the Story of Sinuhe (translation, 
 pp. 168 if.). 
 
 ^ It is highly probable (in spite of the difference of sibilant) that the name 
 Moses (Hebrew Moie) is the Egyptian Mosi which enters as an element into a 
 number of theophorous pi'oper names, Thutmosi, Ahmosi, Amenmosi, &c. The 
 writer is informed by Mr. F. LI. Griffith that mosi is probably a passive participle 
 meaning 'born'. Thus e. g. Thutmosi would mean ' (The god) Thut is born', 
 and Mosi by itself might mean ' He (i.e. the god to whom dedication is made) 
 is bom ' (cf. in Hebrew the use of such a name as Nathan, • He has given,' by 
 the side of the full form Jehonathan, ' Yahweli has given '), or it might simply 
 have the meaning ' son '. As is well known, the derivation suggested in Exod. ii. 
 10, 'drawn out' (sc. from the water), is a mere assonance: Mdse might con- 
 ceivably be an active participle, ' drawing out,' but cannot possibly be inter- 
 preted as a passive. No other Hebrew derivation can be offered ; and the fact 
 that the name is not susceptible of interpretation from Hebrew, but is sus- 
 ceptible of interpretation from Egyptian, is a strong point in favour of the 
 historical fact of Moses' Egyptian connexions The name 0113^3 PJn^hds is
 
 48 ISRAEL'S SETTLEMENT IN CANAAN 
 
 the tribe of Levi with priestly functions seems to have fluctuated.^ 
 The one basic fact probably is that they inherited the privilege 
 froiin Moses, who, according to Exod. ii. 1 E, was himself a member 
 of the tribe. In the oldest tradition (cf. especially Exod. xviii. 14 flf., 
 xxxiii. 7-11 E) it is Moses who occupies the position ol supreme, 
 or rather sole, exponent of religion as intermediary between 
 Yahweh and Israel. Nothing, according to this tradition, is said 
 of any paiticipation by Aaron in these priestly functions — still less 
 of his occupying the supreme position in the priesthood. In the 
 only instance, indeed, in which Aaron is brought into connexion 
 with the Tent of Meeting in the old narrative, he goes there with 
 Miriam to receive a sentence of condemnation and rebuke for 
 having ventured to speak against Moses, who is specified as God's 
 servant with whom He is accustomed to speak mouth to mouth 
 ( Num. xii E). In view of these facts, it at once becomes; obvious 
 that, in the expression ' thy brother Aaron the Levite ', Exod. iv. 14, 
 to which we have already alluded, either the specification ' the 
 Levite ' does not distinctively denote priestly profession, or if (as 
 seems more likely) it does do so, it must represent the later point of 
 view, according to which Aaron and not Moses was the priest 
 'par excellence, and so is without value as regards any bearing upon 
 the question of the origin of the Levites. 
 
 It seems not unlikel}^ that, after a period spent in the neighbour- 
 hood of Kadesb-Barnea (the wilderness-sojourn), while the Joseph- 
 tribes eventually broke off" from this centre, and travelled round 
 the land of Edom in order to enter Canaan from the east of Jordan, 
 bearing with them the Ark of Yahweh with its priestlj^ (Levitical) 
 caretakers, the main part of the tribe of Levi, which ex hypothesi 
 had even prior to the Exodus possessed associations with the north 
 Arabian clans (subsequent elements in the tribe of Judah) inhabiting 
 the region south of the Negeb, preferred, like Simeon, to throw in 
 its lot with these Judaean clans, and so moved up northward with 
 
 clearly the Egyptian Pe-nhesi, 'the negro', i.e. 'child of dark complexion': 
 cf. W. M. Miiller in Encijc. Bill, and, for the general usage of the term nhesl, 
 the same writer in Asien und Europa, p. 112. 
 
 ' On the one hand, we have the tradition of Exod. xxxii. 25 ff. (J and E com- 
 bined) where the zeal of the Levites on Moses' side as against the bull- 
 worshippers is the cause of their selection ; on the other hand, the allusion of 
 ' the Blessing ' in Deut. xxxiii. 8 seems to point to a tradition relating the 
 testing of the fidelity of the tribe at Massah and Meribah (an explanation of 
 the origin of these names different from that which is given in Exod. xvii. 7 JE, 
 Num. XX. 13 P). Deut. x. 8 alludes to the selection of the tribe by Yahweh for 
 the performance of priestly functions without specifying the circumstances.
 
 THE BIBLICAL TRADITION EXAMINED 49 
 
 them at their conquests in the Negeb and the Hill-country beyond 
 it, which came later on to be known as the heritage of the tribe 
 of Judah. 
 
 This theory appears satisfactorily to account for the tribal con- 
 nexion of the Levites with Judah, as found e.g. in Judges xvii. 7fF., 
 xix. 1. It also offers an explanation of the story of the golden bull 
 in Exod. xxxii, in which (at any rate in the form of the narrative 
 which has come down to us) Aaron appears in an unfavourable 
 light as the maker of the image, and the Levites in a favourable 
 light as uncompromising adherents to the pure form of Yahweh- 
 worship. The inference lies near to hand that the narrative, in its 
 present form, was intended as a polemic against the bull-worship 
 of the Northern Kingdom.^ The words, ' These be thy gods, 
 O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt ' 
 (Exod. xxxii. 4) are identically the same as are put into the mouth 
 of Jeroboam in 1 King^s xii. 28, in the account of that king's institu- 
 tion of the bull- worship at Bethel and Dan. As spoken by Jeroboam, 
 the plural 'gods ' naturally refers to the two images of Bethel and 
 Dan ; but in the Exodus-narrative it is difficult, if not impossible, 
 to justify the plural as applied to a single image. If, then, at the 
 period at which the story of Exod. xxxii took shape, ' Aaron ' stands 
 as the representative of the bull-worship of the Northern Kingdom, 
 we may infer that ' the sons of Levi ' are the priestly families of the 
 kingdom of Judah, who are the champions of a purer form of 
 cultus.^ It seems to follow that, while the ' sons of Aaron ' were 
 connected with the early sanctuaries of the Joseph- tribes, Bethel, 
 Shiloh, and Nob, the main Levite stock supplied the priestly needs 
 of Judah in the days when this tribe lived in comparative isolation 
 from the central and northern Israelite tribes ; " though single 
 
 ^ The narrative of Exocl. xxxii is composite, vv. 1-6, 15-24, 35 being assigned 
 to E, and vv. 25-34 (in which the Levites figure as champions on Moses' side 
 against the idolatry) to J ; while vv. 9-14 exhibit mai-ks of a later hand, and 
 are usually attributed to the redactor Rje. Both J and E (written from the 
 standpoint of the prophetic schools of the two kingdoms) are keenly anti- 
 pathetic to the bull-worship. It is possible, however, ' that — although Jeroboam 
 himself appointed non-Levitical priests (1 Kings xii. 31) -there may have been 
 among the priests of the calves some who traced their ancestry to Aaron, and 
 claimed him as the founder of the calf-worship in Israel. If this were the case, 
 it would make Aaron's condemnation the more pointed ' (Driver, Cawhridye 
 Bible, ad loc). » 
 
 ^ Jeroboam's appointment of non-Levitical priests to his newly equipped 
 sanctuaries (1 Kings xii. 31) may have been dictated by political motives, owing 
 to the close association of the Levites with the tribe of Judah. 
 
 * It is worthy of notice that, though Samuel, who was an Ephraimite, held 
 
 B. E
 
 50 ISRAEL'S SETTLEMENT IN CANAAN 
 
 Levites might wander northward in search of a livelihood through 
 the exercise of priestly functions which they were fitted to discharge 
 by birth as well as by training. 
 
 We have left ourselves but little time in which to speak of the 
 early fortunes of the remaining Leah-tribes, Reuben, Issachar, and 
 Zebulun ; and, in fact, there is not much to be said apart from 
 speculation of the vaguest kind. The patriarchal traditions re- 
 o-arding Reuben offer a considerable field for such speculation,^ but 
 admit of no clear-cut conclusions. This much, however, may be 
 affirmed to be probable. (1) The tradition, which is common to 
 J and E, that Reuben was the firstborn son of Jacob and Leah, 
 indicates some kind of original predominance among the tribes, 
 either through priority of settlement in Canaan or in respect of 
 influence. (2) This predominance was lost at an early period, and 
 the tribe dwindled and sank to a position of relative unimportance ; 
 cf. the references to the tribe in both 'the Blessing of Jacob' 
 (Gen. xlix. 3, 4) and ' the Blessing of Moses ' (Deut. xxxiii. 6). (3) 
 Though eventually finding a home east of Jordan in southern 
 Gilead, or rather in the Mishor or table-land still farther south, 
 Reuben seems originally to have settled, or to have attempted to 
 settle, west of Jordan in the southern part of the central 
 Hill-country. The evidence for these two last inferences is 
 interconnected, and may briefly be summarized. The passage in 
 'the Blessing of Moses' which refers to Reuben,'^ and a prose- 
 passage in Gen. xxxv. 22 J, speak of relations between Reuben and 
 
 a position at the sanctuary at Shiloli which we might have expected a Lfevite 
 to fill, he is noivhere termed a Levite ; and this is surely a very surprising fact 
 upon the assumption that the terra ' Levite ' denotes ofl5cial and not tribal 
 ftatus. His example goes to prove that in northern Israel at that period it was 
 not deemed necessary that a priestly official should be a Levite by birth, rather 
 than that a man trained for the priesthood, whatever his tribe, ipso facto 
 became a Levite by profession. 
 
 1 Of. H. W. Hogg, article ' Reuben' in Encyclopaedia Bihlica. 
 
 ^ The change to the third person at the end of the second line of the final 
 
 couplet, 
 
 ' Because thou wentest up to thy father's bed : 
 Then defiledst thou it : he went up to my couch,' 
 
 is explained as expressive of aversion and disgust ; but Ball is undoubtedly 
 right when he remarks that, ' as a sort of sotto race addressed to the audience, 
 [it] is almost comic,' and that parallelism demands a phrase corresponding to 
 'thy father's bed'. The easiest and most natural emendation of npj? '')i'>,T 
 is that of Geii^er iUrschriJi) nr.^n ^V^i*;, 
 
 'Then didst thou defile the couch of Bilhah.'
 
 THE BIBLICAL TRADITION EXAMINED 51 
 
 Jacob's handmaid-wife Bilhah which brought down the patriarch's 
 curse upon his firstborn son — a figure which, if correctly divested 
 of its symbolism and interpreted of inter-tribal relations, seems to 
 picture some sort of aggression upon the rights of the Bilhah-clan. 
 As we have seen, the two sections into which this clan was ultimately 
 split, Dan and Naphtali, appear originally to have occupied a position 
 together on the edge of the Hill-country east of Jerusalem (north 
 and south respectively of the Wady Sarar, the ancient vale of Sorek). 
 Now the description given by the P document in Joshua of the 
 boundary-line between Benjamin and Judah mentions, as one of the 
 defining points, the stone of Bohan the son of Reuben ' (Joshua xv. 6, 
 xviii. 17), on the eastern section of the line where it rises from the 
 Jordan valley to the Hill-country ; and the name seems to imply a 
 tradition that the tribe of Reuben once occupied the district — 
 a position from which it would have been easy to encroach upon 
 the territory of the Bilhah-tribes to the wet. Reuben's subse- 
 quent tribal misfortunes are traced to this incident in Gen, xlix. 4 ; 
 but whether actually proiiter hoc or merely 'post hoc we have no 
 means of determining, as we do not know why or when the tribe 
 sought a new home east of Jordan.^ The eventual insignificance of 
 Reuben was probably due to the fact that the territory in which it 
 settled was a perpetual bone of contention between Israel and Moab. 
 As to the early history of the tribes of Issachar and Zebulun 
 there is even less to be said. Zebulun is in northern Canaan 
 in Judges i. 30 ; but it is possibly significant that, in the short notices 
 of the ' minor ' Judges, Tola, who is a man of Issachar, dwells in 
 Shamir in the Hill-country of Ephraim ^ (Judges x. 1, 2) ; while 
 
 ^ As Steuernagel remarks (Einwaiiderung, pp. 15 f.), the name may originally 
 have been, not jHS J3N;, but il'^ f5^< ' thumb-stone ', owing to the resemblance 
 of the stone to a thymb. Later on the stone was thought to resemble a human 
 figure, and Bohan was taken as the name of a son of Reuben who had been 
 punished by being turned to stone (cf. Gen. xix. 26). Possibly Bohan was 
 pictured as the son of Reuben and Bilhah, and the punishment was thought to 
 have resulted from the parents' sin (cf. 2 Sam. xii. 15). 
 
 - We cannot be sure whether Reuben was west or east of Jordan during the 
 period of the Judges. The Song of Deborah, after alluding to Reuben's failure 
 to respond to the call to arms, goes on to state that ' Gilead (i. e. Gad) abode 
 beyond Jordan ' ; and while the mention of the two tribes one after the other 
 may imply contiguity east of Jordan, we might expect that the words ' abode 
 beyond Jordan ' would have been applied to the first east-Jordan tribe which is 
 mentioned, rather than to the second. 
 
 ^ The term Q''"lD^J "in ' Mount Ephraim ' seems to have included the whole of 
 the central part of the western mountain- range as far north as the plain of 
 
 e2
 
 52 ISRAEL'S SETTLEMENT IN CANAAN 
 
 Elon the Zebulonite is buried in Aijalon^ (Judges xii. 11, 12). This 
 Aijalon is said to have lain ' in the land of Zebulun ' ; but the only 
 Aijalon with which we are otherwise acquainted (the modern Yald) 
 lies in the vale of the same name into which the Beth-horon road 
 opens out. The notices of the ' minor ' Judges are late additions to 
 the Book of Judges, and picture clans as individuals in the aiyle of 
 the post-exilic Priestlj'- school ; but it is not unlikely that the 
 information which they embody may be derived from an early 
 source, and if so, there is some plausibilitj'^ in Prof. Steuernagel's 
 suggestion that we have here traces of the earliest positions occupied 
 bj^ these two tribes.^ 
 
 If this assumption as to the early positions of Issachar and 
 Zebulun be correct, we find five of the six Leah-tribes grouped 
 together in early times in the central Hill-country, viz. Simeon and 
 Levi in the Shechem-district, Issachar in a position which we are 
 unable accurately to define, Zebulun in the south-west, and Reuben 
 in the south-east. This may represent the distribution of these 
 tribes in Canaan at a period possibly long prior to the entry of the 
 Joseph-tribes under Joshua. The remaining Leah-tribe is Judah, 
 concerning which the onl}^ evidence which we have so far deduced 
 is that north Arabian clans subsequently included in it worked 
 their way northward from the district south of the Negeb. The 
 curious legend of Gen. xxxviii J pictures Judah, however, as enter- 
 ing into relations with Canaanite clans in the neighbourhood of 
 Adullam, probably west-south-west of Bethlehem ; and if this is a 
 reflection of the earliest doings of the tribe, it may refer to the 
 original Judah-nucleus, prior to its reinforcement by the north 
 Arabian clans to which its name was subsequently extended. As 
 Dr. Skinner has pointed out,^ the legend seems to belong to a 
 stratum of tradition which ignored the Exodus, and traced the 
 occupation of Canaan back to Jacob and his immediate descendants. 
 
 Before leaving Issachar and Zebulun, we may notice that, when 
 they reached their northern home, their tribal boundaries (if we are 
 justified in speaking of ' boundaries '} seem to have been somewhat 
 
 Esdraelon (i. e. the territory of Benjamin and Manasseb, as well as that 
 of Ephraim proper) : cf. Hogg in Enci/c. Bill. 1311. 
 
 ^ It is of course possible that the distinction between the name of the Judge 
 |ib^N, and that of his burial-place P^'?<, which is one of vowel-points only, may 
 be merely artificial. Elon is really a clan — and not a personal— name, and 
 maj' very possibly have been borne by the village or district in which the clan 
 resided. Cf. Noldeke, Untetsuchungen zur Kritik des A. T., p. 184. 
 
 " Einwandenmg, pp. 12ff. 
 
 ^ Cf. Genesis {Inteniat. Crit. Comnt.), pp. 419 f.
 
 THE BIBLICAL TRADITION EXAMINED 53 
 
 different from those which are indicated in the Priestly document 
 in the Book of Joshua. 'The Blessing of Moses' pictures them 
 together as touching the Mediterranean, doubtless in the neighbour- 
 hood of Accho and Carmel (Deut. xxxiii. 18, 19) : 
 
 ' Rejoice, Zebulun, in thine outgoiugj 
 And Issachar in thy settlement : ^ 
 They call the peoples to the mountain; 
 There they sacrifice sacrifices of righteousness: 
 For they suck the abvmdance of the seas, 
 And the hidden treasures of the sands,' 
 
 Here ' the mountain ' is probably Carmel, which seems to have been 
 the scene of an ancient festival, which 'the peoples' (other tribes) 
 were accustomed to frequent. ' The hidden treasures of the sand ' 
 refers to the manufacture of glass from the sand about Accho.^ 
 
 Similarly, ' the Blessing of Jacob ' pictures Zebulun as dwelling 
 by the sea (Gen. xlix. 13) : 
 
 ' Zebulun shall dwell by the shore of the sea, 
 And shall abide (?) in ships ; ^ 
 And his flank shall be on Zidon.' 
 
 According to Joshua xix, however, both tribes are entirely inland, 
 and it is Asher that occupies the seaboard as far south as Carmel. 
 
 It seems likely that the tradition of a conflict between Israel and 
 a league of northern Cauaanites under Jabin, king of Hazor, which, 
 as we saw in the first lectui-e,^ has been magnified by R'' in 
 Joshua xi. 1 ff. into an attack by the whole of the Canaanites of the 
 north upon the whole of Israel under the leadership of Joshua, 
 really refers to a coalition of much less magnitude against two 
 Israelite tribes only, the Leah-tribe Zebulun and the Bilhah-tribe 
 Naphtali. Comparison of the prose and poetical accounts of the 
 victory of Deborah and Barak in Judges iv and v makes it clear 
 that ' Jabin, king of Canaan, who reigned in Hazor ' is an intruder 
 
 ^ T'?'^^?) usually rendered ' in thy tents ', in accordance with the ordinary 
 usage of bni< in Hebrew. The term is, however, the philological equivalent of 
 Arabic 1*1 'community of settlers', Babylonian dlu, 'city', originally 'settle- 
 ment ' ; and we have in the present passage a survival of this wider and more 
 primitive usage. Cf. also Deut. xvi. 7, Joshua xxii. 4, 6, 7, 8, Judges vii. 8, xix. 9, 
 XX. 8, 1 Sam. xiii. 2, xx. 1, 22, 1 Kings viii. 66, xii. 16. 
 
 ^ Cf. Di-iver, Deuteronomy (Internat. Cn't. Comni.), pp. 409 f. 
 
 ^ The Hebrew text reads ' And be at the shore of ships ' ; but this can hardly 
 be original. We desiderate a verb, and have followed Ball in emending ~W\ 
 Cf. Judges v. 17. 
 
 * Cf. pp. 14 f.
 
 54 ISRAEL'S SETTLEMENT IN CANAAN 
 
 into the former. As the prose narrative stands, it is involved in 
 serious difficulties, whether examined in relation to the Song or 
 independently of it. Assuming, however, that Jabin, king of Hazor, 
 (who has no place in the Song) is the king who figures in Joshua xi. 
 1 ff., and that we have in Judges iv a duplicate of Joshua xi. 1 fF. 
 wrongly interwoven with the story of Deborah and Barak, then 
 the difficulty of combining the prose and poetical accounts vanishes 
 for the most part, and the Song (a contemporary composition) gives 
 remarkable confirmation to the general accuracy of the prose 
 narrative.^ Among the discrepancies between the prose and poetical 
 accounts which call for explanation is the fact that, while the Song 
 speaks of an attempted muster of ten Israelite tribes, six of which 
 responded and did valiantly, the prose account speaks of Zebulun and 
 Naphtali only {vv..6, 10). It may well be that the reference to these 
 two tribes really belongs to the Jabin-narrative ; and considering 
 the fact that the old narrative in Joshua xi. 1 mentions only Jabin, 
 king of Hazor, and the kings of Madon, Shimi'on, and Achshaph, 
 while the indefinite expansion of the league in vv. 2, 3 is editorial, 
 it is likely that the truth is to be found in the supposition of a 
 battle between these four Canaanite kings and the tribes of Zebulun 
 and Naphtali only. This collision may well have occurred when 
 the two Israelite tribes left their home in the central Hill-country 
 and migrated northward. 
 
 Finally, we must consider veiy briefly the implication which is 
 involved in the picturing of four Israelite tribes as sons of hand- 
 maids and not full wives of Jacob. It is highly probable that these 
 tribes were originally regarded as not fully Israelite, i. e. as partially 
 (or, it may be, wholly) of alien extraction, and that it was only by 
 degrees that they won their full place in the circle of the tribes. 
 Let us take the case of Dan. The section of ' the Blessing of Jacob * 
 which refers to this tribe begins with the couplet (Gen. xlix. 16), 
 
 ' Dan shall judge his people 
 As one of the tribes of Israel.' 
 
 This can scarcely be explained to mean simplj^ that he shall main- 
 tain his independence as successfully as any other tribe. It un- 
 doubtedly implies that he will vindicate his claim to be reckoned as 
 an Israelite tribe, i. e. will raise himself out of a position in which 
 he was looked down upon as outside the full blood-brotherhood. 
 
 As we shall see in the next lecture, there exists external evidence 
 which seems to prove that the Zilpah-tribe, Asher, was already 
 
 * Cf. Burney, Judges, pp. 78 ff.
 
 THE BIBLICAL TRADITION EXAMINED 55 
 
 settled in its final position in north-western Galilee at a period 
 prior to the Exodus ; ^ and it can hardly be doubted that all four 
 tribes had occupied the land without a break for some time prior 
 to that event. Whether the other Zilpah-tribe, Gad, was ever 
 west of Jordan we cannot say. The terms of ' the Blessing of 
 Jacob' (Gen. xlix. 19), 
 
 ' Gad, raiders shall raid him ; 
 And he shall raid their rear,' 
 
 is entirely suitable to the position occupied by the tribe in Gilead 
 in close proximity to Aramaean rovers to the north-east. 
 
 There is a difference in the character of the tribal names of these 
 handmaid-tribes as compared with the names of the full Israelite 
 tribes (so far as we can explain them) which may possibly be 
 significant of diversity of origin. 
 
 The three names of handmaid-tribes which can be explained are 
 the names or titles of deities, two of whom at any rate seem to 
 have been astral in character.^ Gad is the god of fortune, whose 
 worship among the renegade Israelites of post-exilic times is men- 
 tioned in Isa. Ixv. 11, and who, as inscriptions prove, was venerated 
 among the Aramaeans and Phoenicians.^ Baal-Gad in the Lebanon- 
 district (cf. Joshua xi. 17, xii. 7, xiii. 3) was probably an important 
 centre of his worship. Similarly, Asher seems to have been the 
 masculine counterpart of the goddess Ashera, who, in her Arabian 
 form Atirat, appears as consort of the Moon-god. It is probable 
 that the curious expression ''ItJ'Xa which is put into the mouth of 
 Leah as an explanation of the name of this tribe (Gen. xxx. 13 J), 
 and is with difficulty interpreted ' In my good luck ', i. e. ' I am in 
 luck ', is an intentional alteration of an original 1??'?| ' With (the 
 help of) Asher ' ; * just as the similar expression "^J^ (Gen. xxx. 11 J) 
 
 1 Cf. pp. 82, 83. 
 
 2 This may also have been the case with Gad as the god of fortune. Cf. 
 (according to the restoration of de Vogiie) the dedication QV^ ?'\U?, answering 
 to the Greek 'Ayadfj Tvxn in a Phoenician inscription from Larnaka of about 
 the fourth century B. c. {Corpus Iiisci-i2). Semit. i. 95). The terra 7JP is used 
 ol the planets, regarded as stars of good or ill fortune {Bereshith rabba, 10, 
 10 c, &c.). 
 
 ^ Cf. Baethgen, Beitrage zur semitischen Reliriionsfieschichte, pp. 76 ff. 
 
 * Ball, SBOT. ad loc, proposes nn^rxn ' with (the help of) Ashera'. There 
 is weighty evidence which points to the primitive connexion of Yahweh with the 
 Moon-god (cf. Additional Note in Burney, Judges, pp. 249 ff.j ; and since it can 
 now be shown conclusively that Yahweh or Yahu was originally an Amorite 
 deity (cf. Additional Note in Burney, Judges, pp. 243 ff.), it seems to follow that
 
 56 ISRAEL'S SETTLEMENT IN CANAAN 
 
 seems to mean ' With (the help of) Gad ', and has likewise been 
 modified in the vocalized text (the K^re) into "ij ><? ' Good fortune 
 has come '. In both cases the modifications are probably due to 
 the dcsii^e to remove expressions offensive to the strict monotheism 
 of a later age. The name Ddn means ' Judge ' ; and, in view of the 
 facts which we have noticed with regard to the names Gad and 
 Asher, it is likely that this name referred originally to a divine 
 Judge who was patron of the tribe. The god of the Babylonian 
 pantheon who was pictured as the Judge 2)ttr excellence was Samas 
 the Sun-god, whose common title among the Babylonians and 
 Ass^'rians was Ddn (or Daian) same u irsiti, 'Judge of heaven and 
 earth.' Evidence for the worship of the Sun-god in the district 
 originally occupied by Dan is to be seen in the place-name Beth- 
 shemesh, ' Temple of the Sun.' The name Samson, whatever be 
 its precise explanation, seems to have been in origin honorific of 
 the Sun-god.^ Very likely it is a hypocoristic from a full form 
 Samsi-el, ' SamaS is god.' In the legends of Samson's exploits 
 there are undoubted traces of an ancient solar myth, such as can 
 
 the deity must have been known and worshipped in Canaan prior to the 
 coming of Israel, though not under the high ethical conception with which He 
 was invested through the Theophany made to Moses at Sinai. Israel's subse- 
 quent religious history may then be pictured, not as a struggle of Yahweh- 
 worship with the worship of a different deity or deities (the Canaanite Baals), 
 but as a struggle between the high ethical conception ofYahweh introduced 
 by Moses, and the lower and more naturalistic conception of the same deity 
 already prevalent in Canaan (cf. Burney in Journal of Theological Studies, 1908, 
 pp. 321 ff.). If, then, Yahweh was pictured in Canaan as the Moon-god, and 
 Ashera is the Arabian Atirat who is known to have been the consort of this 
 deity, the view is plausible that the goddess was regarded in Canaan as the 
 consort of Yahweh. This explains the setting up of her image or symbol 
 beside the altar ofYahweh, and also the keen antagonism with which such a 
 proceeding was regarded by the prophets as the exponents of the purer (Mosaic) 
 form of Yahweh-worship. If, again, Ashera was the name of the female 
 counterpart of the Moon-god, it is likely that the masculine form Asher 
 denoted, in Canaan, the Moon-god himself, i. e. the Canaanite Yahweh. 
 Homniel (Aiifsafze w>d Abha»dlnn(/eu, ii, p. 209) is inclined to think that 
 traces may be found in the old Testament of Asher as a surname of Yahweh in 
 several old poetical passages, especially in Deut. xxxiii. 29, which he renders, 
 
 [Yahweh] is the shield of thine help, 
 And Asher the sword of thine excellency. 
 
 Such an explanation certainly relieves the difficulty of ^nixa 2'\r\ "it^NI, where 
 1t5'N, as vocalized in M. T., is taken for the relative pronoun ; R.V. ' And that 
 is the sword, &c.' — a very awkward and unpoetical construction. Cf. further, 
 note on 'the Ashera' in Burney, Judges, pp. 195 fif. 
 ^ Cf. Burney, Judges, p. 352.
 
 THE BIBLICAL TRADITION EXAMINED 57 
 
 be proved from the Epic of GilgameS to have existed among the 
 Semites.^ 
 
 In the names of the purely Israelite tribes, on the other hand, 
 divine names of this class seem to be non-existent ; but there are 
 a number of names which are susceptible of explanation as animal- 
 names, and which perhaps (as among the Arabs 2) point back to 
 a primitive totemistic stage. Thus Le'ah, and perhaps Levi, seem 
 to mean ' wild-cow ' or ' bovine antelope ' ; ^ Rachel is the ' ewe ' ; 
 Sime'on very possibly the ' hj'^ena-wolf hybrid ',* and Re'uben more 
 doubtfully the ' lion '.^ The Kenizzite clan Caleb incorporated in 
 Judah is the ' dog '-clan. Tola' and Pu'ah, two ' sons ', i. e. clans 
 of Issachar (cf. Gen. xlvi. 13; Num. xxvi. 23 P), mean respectively 
 the cochineal insect,^ from which a red dye is extracted, and a plant 
 which is a species of madder (Rubia tinctorwm),'^ the root of which 
 is likewise used to produce a dye of similar colour. I have no 
 theory to account for the fact that the two groups of tribes bear 
 names of such different classes — the one group astral and the other 
 perhaps totemistic. Possibly it may be accidental that they so 
 divide themselves ; but the fact is at any rate worthy of notice. 
 
 The reason why Bilhah is represented as the handmaid of Rachel, 
 while Zilpah is the handmaid of Leah, seems obviously to be that, 
 at the stage at which the legend originated, the Bilhah-tribes, Dan 
 and Naphtali, dwelt in contiguity to the Joseph-tribes upon their 
 
 ^ Cf. Additional Note in Burney, Judges, pp. 391 fF. 
 
 * Cf. Robertson Smith, 'Animal worship and animal tribes among the Arabs 
 and in the Old Testament ', Journal of Philology, ix (1680), pp. 75 ff. ; reprinted 
 in Lectures and Essays, pp. 455 flf. 
 
 ' Arabic la^y. Cf. Noldeke, ZDMG. xl, p. 16; Robertson Smith, Kinshij), 
 ed. 2, pp. 227, 255 ; Delitzsch, Prolegomena, p. 80; Gray, Hebrew Proper Names, 
 p. 96 ; Ed. Meyer, Israeliten, p. 426, note 3. 
 
 * Arabic sim\ The identification of Sime'on with sim' goes back (accord- 
 ing to Hogg, Encyc. Bibl. 4531) to Hitzig, Geschichte des Volkes Israel, p. 45, 
 and is adopted by nobertson Smith, Journal of Philology, 1880, p. 80 ; and 
 others. 
 
 ^ Arabic rVhdl, ' lion ' (or ' wolf), makes plural ra'dbtl, which in a shortened 
 form ra'duil would give Hebrew ?5iXl : cf. the form of the name 'Pov^qXos in 
 Josephus, Antiquities, i. 19. 7 ; PeshittS, ^^^o*». So Lagarde, Onomastica 
 Sacra, ed. 2, p. 367. 
 
 * Hebrew V^iW, which means ' worm ' in Exod. xvi. 20 (more commonly fern. 
 ny^^n ; cf. Babylonian iultti), is used in Isa. i. 18, Lam. iv. 5 to denote the 
 crimson dye prepared from the insect. 
 
 ■^ Arabic fuwicah. The Hebrew form nj3 Puwwah is given in Gen. xlvi. 13, 
 Num. xxvi. 23. Eusebius explains Puah as fpvdpd : cf. Onomastica Sacra, 
 200, 1. 98.
 
 58 ISRAEL'S SETTLEMENT IN CANAAN 
 
 south-west, whereas the Zilpah-tribes, Asher and Gad, were among 
 the Leah-tribes, the one in the north, the other east of Jordan. 
 
 Having reached this point in our discussion, we are in a position 
 to pass on to the external evidence afforded by archaeology, in 
 order that we may seek for light frqm that source upon the early 
 movements of the tribes of Israel.
 
 LECTURE III 
 
 EXTERNAL EVIDENCE AND CONCLUSIONS 
 
 In attempting a survey of external evidence offered by archaeo- 
 logical discovery which may possibly throw light upon the early 
 movements of the Israelites and their ancestors, a natural starting- 
 point to select is the Hyksos-domination of Egypt. Current 
 theories as to the migration of Israel's ancestors from Canaan to 
 Egypt take us back to this period ; and it is from this period that 
 we have the earliest occurrence of a name which may possibly be 
 brought into connexion with the Biblical tradition. 
 
 Concerning the Hyksos our information from Egyptian sources 
 is unfortunately very scanty. We know that they were foreign 
 invaders who poured into Egypt from the north-east, subjugated 
 the country for the most part, and established themselves there for 
 a considerable period. The conclusion that they were Asiatic 
 Semites seems now to be established. Whether the Egyptian 
 annalist Manetho, upon whom we are still dependent for the main 
 part of our information concerning this people, is right in explaining 
 their title as meaning ' shepherd-kings ' ^ (from Egyptian Hyh = 
 'king', and 'soi>' = 'shepherd ', or rather 'nomad freebooter') is 
 a disputed question ; ^ but at any rate some of the names of Hyksos 
 chieftains which have come down to us from contemporary Egyptian 
 sources are indisputably Semitic in character. Hyan, the most 
 important Hyksos king known to us, bears a good Semitic name ; ^ 
 
 ^ Cf. Josephus, Contra Apionem, i. 14. 
 
 ^ On this interpretation sos is probably the Egyptian sasxt, a term applied to 
 the Asiatic Bedawin. Breasted [History of Egypt, p. 217) objects to this 
 explanation, and suggests that the real meaning of Hyksos is 'ruler of 
 countries '—a title which Hyan, one of the Hyksos kings, often gives himself on 
 his monuments. Cf. also Griffith in Proceedings of the Soc. of Bihl. Arch., xix 
 (1897), pp. 296 f.; W. M. Miiller in Mitteilungen der Vorderasiat. Gesellsch., 
 1898, 3, pp. 4 ft-. 
 
 ^ The name is borne by an Aramaean king of Ya'di in northern Syria in the 
 ninth centur)^ B. c, and is written Ha-ia-ni in the annals of Shalmaneser III 
 (cf. Keilinschriftliche Bihliothek, i, p. 170), and ST! in the inscription of Kalumu, 
 the succeeding king of Ya'di (cf., for inscription, references given in Buruey, 
 Judges, p. 174).
 
 GO ISRAELS SETTLEMENT IN CANAAN 
 
 and among other names of autonomous chieftains there occur one 
 which seems to represent the Semitic 'Anath-el, and another (most 
 interesting to us in view of our present inquiry) which may be 
 read as Jacob-el.^ When eventually driven out of Egypt by 
 xVhmosi I, we find the Hyksos making a stand in Sharuhen (i. e. no 
 doubt the city of that name mentioned in Joshua xix. 6 as assigned 
 to Simeon in southern Judah), where they are besieged by Ahmosi 
 for three years, and finally defeated by him in northern Syria ; ^ 
 and we have, therefore good ground for the assumption that they 
 were, in origin, the more or less civilized people of Amurru (to use 
 the term applied by the Babylonians to the region stretching west- 
 ward from the Euphrates, and including the whole Syrian littoral), 
 and that their line of retreat lay, as was natural, into the land 
 occupied by their kindred. The cause which originally led to the 
 invasion of Egypt by these Semitic inhabitants of Amurru lies 
 outside the scope of our present inquiry. We may, however, briefly 
 observe that (as suggested by Mr. H. R. Hall) the almost contem- 
 porary incursion into Western Asia of the Kassites from Ir^n and 
 the Hittites from Asia Minor ' must have caused at first a consider- 
 able displacement of the Semitic population, which was pressed 
 south-westwards into southern Syria and Palestine ', and it may 
 well have been as a result of this pressure that the Semites ' burst 
 the ancient barrier of Egypt ', and invaded it in full flood.^ 
 
 The length of the period covered by the Hyksos invasion and 
 domination of Egypt is most uncertain. Prof. Petrie accepts and 
 defends Manetho's statement that 511 years elapsed from their first 
 invasion to their ultimate expulsion ; but Prof. Ed. Meyer and his 
 followers allow conjecturally no more than one hundred years.* 
 Mr. Hall seems to have good sense on his side in arguing for a figure 
 between these two extremes — perhaps about two hundred years.^ 
 The accession of Ahmosi I, who expelled them from Egypt, is dated 
 c. 1580 B. C.6 
 
 ^ Cf. Petrie, Hi/ksos and Israelite Cities, pp. 68 f.; Hall, Ancient Histoiy of the 
 Near East, 'p. 217 ; Spiegelberg in Orientaliatische Liieraiurzeitimg, vii (1904), 
 col. 131. 
 
 "^ Cf. the autobiographies of the two Egyptian officers named Ahmosi who 
 took part in this war: Breasted, Ancient Eecords of Egypt, ii, §§ 1 if. 
 
 ^ Cf. Hall, Ancient History of the Near East, p. 212 ; Luckenbill in American 
 Journal of TJieology, xviii (1914), p. 32. 
 
 * Cf. Meyer, Geschichte des AUeiiiinis, ed. 2, I. ii, p. 293 ; Breasted, History of 
 Egypt, p. 221. 
 
 6 CI. Hall, Ancient Histoy of the Near East, pp. 23 If., 216 f.. 218. 
 
 '^ The accession-dates given for Egyptian kings are those of Breasted.
 
 EXTERNAL EVIDENCE 61 
 
 Invasion of Palestine and Syria, thus begun by Ahmosi I, the 
 founder of the Eighteenth Egyptian dynasty, was carried farther 
 by subsequent kings. Thutmosi I (c. 1539 B. c.) advanced vic- 
 toriously through Syria as far as Naharin, i. e. the district included 
 in the river-systems of the Orontes and the upper Euphrates, and 
 set up a boundar3--tablet on the bank of the Euphrates to mark 
 the northern limit of his kingdom.^ Thutmosi III (c. 1501 B.C.) 
 did more than any other Egyptian monarch to win and consolidate 
 an empire in Western Asia in a series of seventeen campaigns , 
 lasting from c. 1479 to 1459 B. c.^ The first of these was signal- 
 ized by a victor}'^ at Megiddo over a big coalition of ' the people of 
 Upper Retenu ' (i. e. southern Syria, including Palestine). A list 
 on the walls of the temple of Amon at Karnak of ' the people of 
 Upper Retenu whom his Majesty shut up in wretched Megiddo ' 
 contains 119 place-names, and is of great geographical interest.^ {'^ 
 Among the names is one which is read as Jacob-el, and another, 
 much more doubtfully, as Joseph-el.* 
 
 Succeeding campaigns enabled Thutmosi gradually to extend his 
 power farther north, and it was in the eighth of these that he 
 reached the climax of his successes. Advancing into Naharin, he 
 met and defeated ' that foe of wretched Naharin ', i. e., probably, 
 the king of Mitanni, a considerable state which, though ultimately 
 confined, through Thutmosi's victories, to the region beyond the 
 upper Euphrates, seems at this time to have extended south-west 
 of the Euphrates, and to have included Naharin. In the same 
 campaign Thutmosi captured Carchemish, and crossing the ' 1. j 
 Euphrates, set up his boundary-taljlet upon its eastern bank, 
 beside that of Thutmosi I. ' Heta the Great', i.e. the Hittites of 
 Cappadocia, now sent him presents ; and it is even possible that he 
 may have received presents from Babylon.^ Thutmosi's remaining 
 
 '■ Cf. Breasted, Ancient Records of Egypt, ii, §§ 79, 81, 85. 
 
 "- Ibid., ii, §§ 391 ff. 
 
 ' Cf. W. M. Miiller, ^sien und Europa, pp. 157 ff.; Die PulSstinaliste Thut- 
 mosis III (Mitteilungen der Vorderasiat. Gesellsch., 1907, 1). Petrie, History of 
 Egypt, ii, pp. 320 ff., attempts to find a systematic arrangement in the list, and 
 offers identifications, many of which must be deemed highly precarious. 
 
 * Egyptian Y-'-k-b-d-ra and Y-s-p-'d-ra (Nos. 102 and 78). The latter equiva- 
 lence is very doubtful, since the sibilant does not correspond with that of ^pi\ 
 
 ^ It is a disputed question whether we should find allusion to ' tribute of the 
 chief of Shin'ar ' (Heb. ly^C' a name of Babylonia), or whether the reference is 
 to the modern Gebel Singar, north-west of Nineveh. Cf. Breasted, Ancient 
 Records of Egypt, ii, § 484 (foot-note) ; Hall, Ancient History of the Near East, 
 p. 2 12.
 
 62 ISRAEL'S SETTLEMENT IN CANAAN 
 
 campaicns in Syria were occupied in quellini;- revolts and generally 
 consolidating the broad territory which he had won. 
 
 It is from the reign of Thutuiosi III and onwards that we find 
 occasional reference in Egyptian documents to a people called 
 'Apuriu or ^Apriu. The name is preceded by the Determinative 
 which denotes foreigners. The allusion which falls in the reign of 
 Thutmosi III comes from a tale which is said not to be a con- 
 tempoi'ary document. It relates how, when Joppa was captured 
 by a ruse by Thuty, a general of Thutmosi, Thuty sent a message 
 to his troops outside by one of the 'Apiiriu. Other allusions, which 
 belong to the reigns of Ra'messe II (c. 1292-25), Ra'messe III 
 (c. 1198-67), and Ra'messe IV {c. 1167-61), picture the 'Aimrin 
 in Egypt, performing (like the Hebrews of Exod. i. 11 ff'.) heavy 
 manual labour in connexion with the building operations of the 
 Pharaohs, especially the quarrying and transportation of stone. 
 The theory that the 'Apurixi are the Hebrews (Heb. 'ibhrhn) was 
 long ago advanced.^ but met with little success, the main consensus 
 of Egyptological opinion being opposed to it. Lately it has been 
 revived, and supported by arguments of some weight ; ^ and if the 
 philological difficulty of equating the two names (the representation 
 of Hebrew b by Egyptian p)) be not insuperable, it seems possible 
 that the names may coincide.^ Since, however, the latest reference 
 to this people as employed in Egj^^pt dates from the reign of 
 Ra'messe IV — a period at which, on any plausible hypothesis, the 
 Exodus must already have taken place, our inference (if we accept 
 the identification) must be that some Hebrew^s (not necessarily 
 Israelites) were still in Egypt after the Exodus. As is well known, 
 the Israelites were a part only, and not the wdiole, of the Hebrew 
 stock ; and, assuming that the 'A2Jurm were the Hebrews, we can 
 
 ^ Cf. Chabas, Melanges Egyptologiqties, I Ser., 1862, pp. 42-55 ; II. Ser., 1864, 
 pp. 108-65; Ebers, Aegypten nnd die Biicher Mose's, 1868, p. 316; Durch 
 Gosen ziim Sinai, ed. 2, 1881, pp. 505 f. 
 
 2 Cf. especially Heyes, BiheUind Agypten, 1904, pp. 146-58. The identifica- 
 tion is regarded as plausible by Skinner {Genesis in Int'ernat. Crit. Conim., 
 pp. 218 ft'.), Driver {Exodus in Cambridge Bible, pp. xli f., where a synopsis is 
 given of all mentions in Egyptian inscriptions), and other Biblical scholars ; 
 though among modern Egyptologists Maspero {Les Premieres Melies des Peuples, 
 p. 443, n. 3; Contes piopidaires, p. 119, n. 3) and Breasted {Ancient Records of 
 Egypt, iv, § 281, n. e) definitely reject it, while W. M. Miiller [Encijc. Bibl. 1243) 
 more guardedly refi>6es to decide either for or against it. 
 
 3 That the interchange between Hebrew b and Egyptian/), though rare, does 
 actually occur is proved by Heyes, op. cit., p. 148 (his best instance is Eg. 
 hurpu = Heb. nnn ' sword '). Cf. also Burchardt, Die altkanaanaischen Fremd- 
 uoiie iind Eigennamen im AegyptitcJien, § 50.
 
 EXTERNAL EVIDENCE 63 
 
 only accept the identification in the widest sense borne by the 
 name, and must not (on present evidence) narrow it down specifi- 
 cally to the Israelites. The value of the identification (if such it 
 be) lies in its confirmation of the Biblical tradition that Hebrew 
 clans migrated with ease into Egypt, and were employed there in 
 heavy manual task- work. 
 
 Egypt's Asiatic empire was maintained unimpaired under 
 Thutmosi Ill's successors, Amenhotp II (c. 1448 B.C.) and Thut- 
 mosi IV (c. 1420 B.C.); though both these monarchs had to quell 
 rebellions which broke out in northern Syria and Naharin at, or 
 shortly after, their accessions. The authority of Egypt was, how- 
 ever, efi'ectively maintained by official representatives and garrisons 
 in the larger towns ; and the system of allowing the Syrian cities 
 a large measure of autonomy under their petty chieftains proved, 
 on the whole, to be justified. The marriage of Thutmosi IV with 
 the daughter of Artatama, king of Mitanni, was a judicious measure 
 which gained for Egypt an ally upon the north-eastern limit of her 
 Asiatic kingdom ; and it was probably owing to this that Amen- 
 hotp III, the son of Thutmosi by his Mitannian queen, succeeded to 
 the empire without having to meet any insurrection on the part of 
 the turbulent elements in Naharin. 
 
 For the reigns of Amenhotp III (c. 1411 B.C.) and his successor 
 Amenhotp IV (c. 1375 B. c.) we possess the evidence of the corre- 
 spondence discovered at Tell el-Amarna in Egypt in 1887,^ which is 
 of unique importance for the history of Syria and the surrounding- 
 countries of Western Asia in their relation with Egypt and with 
 one another. At this period (as the Amarna letters first proved to 
 us) the language of diplomacy and commerce in Western Asia was 
 Babylonian, and correspondence was carried on in the cuneiform 
 script, written upon clay tablets. Many of these letters are 
 addressed to the king of Egypt by the independent rulers of the 
 neighbouring kingdoms of Western Asia — Babylonia or Kardunias 
 (to give the kingdom its Kassite name), Assyria, Mitanni, &c.— who 
 were naturally concerned to preserve good diplomatic relations 
 
 ^ The most recent edition of the Amarna letters is that b}- J. A. Knudtzon, 
 Die el-Amarna Tafeln (1908-15), which takes the place of H. Winckler's edition 
 (KeilinschriftHche Bihliotheh, v, 1896) as the standard edition for scholars. The 
 cuneiform text of the Berlin collection of tablets has been published by Abel 
 and Winckler, Der Tlionlafelfund von el-Amarna (1889), and that of the British 
 Museum collection by Bezold in Budge and Bezold, Tel el-Amarna Tablets in 
 th<> Brit. Mus. (1892). All the original tablets were exhaustively collated by 
 Knudtzon for his transliteration and translation of the texts. Bohl, Die 
 Sprache der Amarnahriefe (1909), is important for philology.
 
 64 ISRAEL'S SETTLEMENT IN CANAAN 
 
 with Egypt. These, tliough of first importance for the history of 
 the times, do not here concern us, except incidentally. It is the 
 correspondence of the subject-kinglets which brings most vividly 
 before us the condition of Syria and Canaan at the time, and the 
 causes which were leading to the gradual weakening of Egypt's 
 hold upon her Asiatic possessions. 
 
 In the i-eign of Amenhotp III the Egyptian Empire was at its 
 zenith, and the luxury and magnificence of the kingdom had never 
 been surpassed. This, however, was due to the continuous eftbrts 
 of the Pharaoh's warlike ancestors : he seems himself to have been 
 content to enjoy the fruits of past achievement, and not to have 
 been greatly concerned M'ith the maintenance of the tradition of 
 empire-building. Thus already in his reign we discover the be- 
 ginning of movements which were destined ultimately to bring 
 about the decline of Egypt's suzerainty over the coast-land of 
 Western Asia. 
 
 It was under Amenhotp IV, however, that the crisis became 
 acute. This king is remarkable as the introducer into Eg^^pt of 
 a new form of religion, a kind of philosophic monotheism which 
 centred in the worship of the solar disk (called in Egyptian, Aton). 
 Repudiating the name Amenhotp, he adopted the name Ahnaton 
 (' Spirit of Aton ') ; and having removed his capital from Thebes, 
 where the power and influence of the old religion were naturally 
 at their strongest, he founded a new capital, some 300 miles lower 
 down the Nile and about 160 miles above the Delta, to which he 
 gave the name Ahetaton (' Horizon of Aton '). This is the modern 
 Tell el-Amarna. Wholly absorbed in his religious speculations and 
 in domestic life, the king cared little about the fate of his Asiatic 
 provinces; and letters from the native princes and governors of 
 Syria and Canaan speak again and again of the growing spirit of 
 disaffection towards Egypt, or beg for assistance in the face of 
 open revolt. 
 
 The trouble arose principally from the encroachment of the 
 Hittites upon northern Syria. The Hittites were an Anatolian 
 people, concerning whose earlier history we have but scant informa- 
 tion. Probably they formed at first a collection of semi-independent 
 tribes, 'loosely united by the bond of a common extraction. About 
 the time of which we. are speaking, however, there arose among 
 them a powerful leader named Subbiluliuma, son of a certain 
 Hattusili who was king of a city named KuSsar, who succeeded 
 in binding the Hittite clans into a strong confederation. Subbi- 
 luliuma's reign, of probably some forty years (c. 1385-1345 B. c), was
 
 EXTERNAL EVIDENCE 65 
 
 a long career of conquest resulting in the creation of an empire 
 which lasted under one dynasty for nearly 200 years. His 
 capital city, which was called Hatti, lay east and north of the 
 river Halys in the district which was known in later ages as 
 Cappadocia. The site of this city is marked by the modern village 
 of Boghaz Keui ; and here Prof. Winckler recently discovered the 
 Hittite archives, containing an immense store of tablets written in 
 cuneiform, some in the Babylonian, and others in the Hittite 
 language. The Hittite language is for practical purposes as yet 
 undeciphered, but the Babylonian tablets have added immensely to 
 our knowledge of the Hittites and their foreign relations, even 
 though at present we are dependent upon Winckler's preliminary 
 account, containing translations of the more important inscriptions, 
 which was published in the Mitteilungen der deutscJien Orient- 
 Gesellschaft in December, 1907.^ Publication of full transcriptions 
 of the documents has been long delayed ; but two fasciculi con- 
 taining many important inscriptions were brought out in Germany 
 at the end of last year.^ 
 
 In the latter years of Amenhotp III we find Subbiluliuma crossing 
 the Taurus, and leading his forces to the attack of northern Syria, 
 The safe retention of Naharin as an Egyptian province depended 
 as we have noticed, largely upon the goodwill of the king of 
 Mitanni ; and the alliance which had been contracted through the 
 marriage of Thutmosi IV with a Mitannian princess had been 
 further cemented by the union of Amenhotp III with Gilu-Hipa, 
 sister of Tusratta, the reigning king of Mitanni, and subsequently 
 with Tadu-Hipa, Tusratta's daughter, who, after the death of 
 Amenhotp III, became a wife of his successor Ahnaton. TuSratta, 
 however, had succeeded to a kingdom weakened by internal 
 intrigues, his brother Artassumara, who reigned before him, having 
 been assassinated. He was strong enough to repel the Hittites 
 from Mitanni for the time being, but could not prevent Subbilu- 
 liuma from invading Naharin, where the projects of the Hittite 
 king were furthered by another brother of Tusratta, named (like 
 his grandfather) Artatama. This prince, having very possibly been 
 implicated in the murder of Artassumara, had been obliged to fly 
 from Mitanni to Naharin, and, with his son Sutatarra, and grandson 
 Itakama, of whom we hear later on as prince of Kinza or Kid§a 
 (i. e. the district of which the principal city was Kadesh on the 
 
 ^ Hereafter cited as MDOG. 
 
 ^ Keilschrifitexte aus Boghazkoi, Autographien von H. H. Figulla und E. F. 
 Weidner, Oktober 1916. 
 
 B. F
 
 66 ISRAEL'S SETTLEMENT IN CANAAN 
 
 Orontes), welcomed the opportunity of intriguing with the Hittites 
 against Tusratta. Farther south, Abd-Asirta was chieftain of 
 Axiiurru, a name which in the usage of this period is restricted to 
 the region immediately south of Naharin, i.e. the Lebanon-district 
 and the desert country to the east as far as the Euphrates,^ em- 
 bracing the important series of oases which mark the short route 
 from Babylonia through Syria to Egypt. This Amorite prince 
 perceived that his own interests would best be served by making 
 common cause with the Hittites, and attacking the rulers of the 
 Phoenician coast-cities, who were loyal to Egypt. For a time he 
 and his son Aziru managed with amazing astuteness to pass them- 
 selves off as faithful vassals of Egypt, in spite of the urgent repre- 
 sentations of Rib-Adda, the governor of Gebal, who displayed the 
 utmost energy in the Egyptian cause. Amenhotp III seems at 
 length to have been convinced of the true state of affairs, and to 
 have dispatched an army; and the tension was temporarily 
 relieved.^ Under Ahnaton. however, no such help was forthcoming ; 
 and the Phoenician cities fell one after another into the hands of 
 the Amorites.^ 
 
 Meanwhile in the south affairs were little better ; local dissensions 
 were rife among the petty Canaanite princes, and we find them 
 engaged in active intrigue against their suzerain, and at the same 
 time sending letters to the Pharaoh full of protestations of loyalty 
 and accusations against their neighbours. So far as we can judge, 
 ARAD-Hiba, the governor of Jerusalem, stood faithfully for the 
 interests of the Egyptian king ; but he seems to have stood almost 
 alone. His letters make urgent and repeated requests for the 
 dispatch of Egyptian troops, and state that, unless they can speedily 
 be sent, the whole country will be lost to Egypt. The part played 
 by the Hittites and Amorites in the north is filled in the south by 
 a people called Habiru.'^ 
 
 The Habiru are mentioned under this name in the letters of 
 ARAD-Hiba'^ only. He states that they have plundered all the 
 
 ' Cf. p. 76, n. 1. 
 
 = Cf. Knudtzon, no. 117, 11. 21 ff. 
 
 ^ For a detailed account of the movements of Subbiluliuma and the north 
 Syrian rebellion cf. Hall, Ancient History of the Near East, pp. 341 fF. 
 
 * Most writers refer to this people as Habiri ; but, as Knudtzon points out 
 (cf. p. 45 note), out of the seven (or eight) passages in which they are mentioned 
 the form is Hahiru in the two cases in which the name stands as a Nominative, 
 Habiri (with the Genitive tei-mination) being in all occurrences an oblique 
 form. So Dhorme in Retme BibJique, 1909, p. 67, note 2. 
 
 ^ This name, which means ' Servant of (the goddess) Hiba ', is probably
 
 J* EXTERNAL EVIDENCE 67 
 
 king's territory and occupied his cities ; unless the king can send 
 troops before the end of the year the whole of his territory will 
 certainly fall away to them. Certain of the vassals, notably one 
 Milkili and the sons of Labaya, are accused of conspiring with the 
 Habiru and allowing them to occupy the king's territory ; and the 
 district of Shechem ^ seems to be specified as having passed into 
 their hands. The cities of Gezer, Ashkelon, and Lachish appear to 
 have been implicated in assisting them.^ Indeed, ARAD-Hiba 
 states that he has been obliged to tax the king's own high-com- 
 missioner with playing into their hands, and that on this account 
 he has been slandered to the king. In this last reference the 
 question addressed by ARAD-Hiba to the commissioner, ' Wherefore 
 lovest thou the Habiru, and hatest the city -governors ? ' — sets them 
 in contrast to the latter,^ who represent the delegated authority 
 of Egypt. 
 
 Hittite-Mitannian, since Hiba or Hipa is known to have been a Hittite- 
 Mitannian goddess (cf. the names Gilu-Hipa, Tadu-Hipa borne by Mitannian 
 princesses ; Pudu-Hipa, wife of the Hittite king Hattusili II) ; and, if this is 
 so, it follows that the Sumerian ideogram AR AD, ' servant ', probably stands for 
 the Hittite or Mitannian word for ' servant ', which is unknown to us. The 
 ordinarily accepted form Abdi-Hiba (reading the Hebrew or Canaanite ''I^J? 
 
 for the ideogram "-ti^y) is based upon the assumption that the man was a 
 Semite, which is very improbable. Cf. Burney, Judges^ Introd. p. Ixxxvi. 
 
 ^ (Matu) §a-dlc-mi, according to Knudtzon's reading (no. 289, 1. 23). Winckler 
 (no. 185) fails to make sense of the passage. 
 
 "^ This is an inference only ; though a fairly certain one. In the letter in 
 question (Knudtzon, no. 287) there comes a break of about eight lines, after 
 which ARAD-Hiba continues, ' Let the King know that all the states are 
 leagued in hostility against me. Behold, the land of Gezer, the land of 
 Ashkelon, and Lachish gave unto them food, oil, and everything that they 
 needed ; so let the King have a care for his territory, and dispatch bowmen 
 against the men who have done evil against the King my lord.' Here it can 
 scarcely be doubted that the object implied in ' gave unto them ' is the Habiru, 
 who must have been mentioned in the missing passage. So Weber in Knudtzon, 
 p. 1337. 
 
 ^ The term 'hazan{n)u, hazianii, plur. hazanutu, is doubtless the same as 
 New Heb. |jn which means 'inspector' or 'overseer'. Cf. the referenco ^o 
 Jacob as a ' city-overseer' (sno JTn) under Laban, quoted by Buxtorf, Lexicon, 
 S.V., from Baha mesia. The ordinary New Heb. usage of pn to denote a 
 synagogue-overseer or minister is technical and secondaiy. Besides the title 
 hazanu, the ordinary title by which the Syrian vassal-chieftains describe 
 themselves to the Egyptian king, and are described by him (cf. Knudtzon, 
 no. 99), is amehi, ' man ' of such and such a city. To outsiders they are 
 miruni, 'kings' (cf. Knudtzon, no. 30), a title which is fam'iliar to us as 
 applied to them in the Old Testament, and which was doubtless always 
 claimed by them when independent of the suzerainty of P^gypt. 
 
 f2
 
 68 ISRAEL'S SETTLEMENT IN CANAAN 
 
 The question of the identity of the Habiru has aroused greater 
 
 interest and keener discussion than any other point raised by the 
 
 Amarna Letters. Were they, as has often been alleged, identical 
 
 with the Hehreivs, i. e. with the clans which are pictured in Genesis 
 
 - / as the descendants of Abi-aham the Hebrew, who may well have 
 
 f • f been pressing into Canaan at about this period ? Were thej' even 
 
 (as has been more boldly suggested) the tribes of Israel engaged 
 
 j "1 under Joshua in the invasion and conquest of the Promised Land ? 
 
 The acceptance of this latter view involves (as we shall presently 
 
 see) the abandonment of the commonly received conclusion as to 
 
 the date of the Exodus, and the placing of this event at least two 
 
 hundred years earlier. 
 
 The philological equivalence of {aineliXtu) Ha-hi-ru ^ with ^1'^V 
 Hbhri, ' Hebrew '■ — or rather, since the form is not a gentilic, with 
 l^y 'Ebher, LXX "E^ep (Gen. x. 21, xi. 14, &c.)— is perfect. About 
 this there can be no doubt at all. As is well known, Hebrew 
 y 'Ay in corresponds to the two Arabic sounds c 'A in and p. Gain; 
 and the evidence of LXX transliterations of Hebrew names indi- 
 cates that, when Hebrew was a spoken language, two sounds of y, 
 a softer and a rougher, were distinguished as in Arabic. Thus 
 y = c is represented in LXX by a light breathing ^ (e. g. ''^V = 'HXi, 
 nn]y = 'A^apid), whereas y = p appears as a P (e. g. 'ijy = Fa^d, 
 iTiby = Fofioppa, "ly^' = ^rjyoap, Zoyop). Since "^V. appears in LXX 
 as "E^ep, and ''I^V as 'EfSpaio^, we infer that the initial y is of the 
 softer kind. Instances of soft y represented by H in the Amarna 
 Letters are frequent. The following may be noted : 
 
 Canaanite ' glosses ' (i. e. Canaanite words inserted in the Letters 
 in explanation of Babylonian words) : 
 
 hi-na-ia = ''^''V. (Arabic ^^), gloss on ini-ia (written iilGI-ia) : 
 
 Knudtzon, no. 144, 1. 17. 
 ha-pa-ru ^ = "isy (Arabic root_^), gloss on ijira (written SAGAR- 
 
 ra): Knudtzon, no. 143, 1. 11. 
 ha-zi-ri = "^"'>*V (probablj' passive participial form for "i^^'V- Arabic 
 
 rootle), gloss on i-ka-al : Knudtzon, no. 138, 1. 130. 
 ziL-ru-uh = y"""!] (Arabic pKi), gloss on kdt (written SU) : Knudtzon, 
 
 no. 286, 1. 34; no. 2g7, 1. 27. The same form is also used 
 
 ^ Ameliitu, ' men ', or sing, amelu, ' man ', are used as Determinatives before 
 the names of tribes or classes. 
 
 ^ It would be more accurate to say that it was unrepresented in writing, the 
 breathings being absent in the earliest MSS. 
 
 8 We also find the gloss a-pa-ni : Knudtzon, no. 141, 1. 4.
 
 EXTERNAL EVIDENCE 69 
 
 twice in place of the Babylonian term : Knudtzon, no. 286, 
 1. 12 ; no. 288, 1. 14. 
 
 Similarly, 
 ha-ah-lwin = -'5?? (LXX ^daX, Arabic Jx>) in the proper names Pu- 
 
 ba-ah-la, Mu-ut-ba-ah-lum: Knudtzon, no. 104, 1. 7; no. 255, 1. 3. 
 Ha-nnu = '"^y (Arabic *c) in the proper name Ha-onu-ni-rl ^ (cf. the 
 
 same element in Ha-am-mu-ra-hi) : Knudtzon, no. 137, 11. 15, 
 
 66,69,88; no. 138,11. 52, 132. 
 
 Place-names : 
 
 (ondtu) Ki-na-ah-hi (variants Ki-na-a-ah-hi, Ki-na-hl, Ki-na-ah- 
 na, Ki-na-ah- III) = |y?3 (LXX Xavdav) : frequent. 
 
 (dlu) Sa-ar-ha = '"i^"]? (LXX Hapad, modern Arabic ic^) : Knudt- 
 zon, no.^273, 1. 21. 
 
 (dlu) Hi-ni-a-na-hi = 235? pj? : Knudtzon, no. 225, 1. 4. 
 
 (dlu) Ta-ah-\^nu-kct\ = 'H^V^ (LXX ©aai^dx, modern Arabic di-Lx.)) : 
 Knudtzon, no. 208, 1. 14. 
 
 Were it necessary to go outside the Amarna letters, this list 
 might easily be increased by the addition of Amorite proper names 
 in Babylonian First dynasty tablets, e. g. A-bi-e-su-uh (by the side 
 of A-bl-e-ki-') = y'lti'nN (South Arabian yn>3s) ; Ya-di-ih-el = ^xi?n^; 
 Ya-as-ma-ah-^'"' Da-gan = fJ'^V^f ! ; &c. 
 
 The vocalization of Ha-bi-ru is also agreeable to an equivalence 
 with ">?y. P^re Dhorme's statement ^ that Habini is a participial 
 form is unwarranted (we never find it written Ha-a-hl-ru, i. e. 
 Hdbiru). Habiru is not a gentilic form like Hebrew sing. ''l^V, 
 plur. D''"!9V (the Babylonian gentilic form would be Hahird : cf. 
 p. 77), but a substantive form like "1?^ (the eponym of "'I^V) with 
 the nominative case-ending. The short i vowel in Habiriv might 
 very well vary: cf. Ai'mu, Aramu, Arimu, ^rur/iu = Hebrew 
 Ci"3X, A good analogy for Habiru = l^J? may be seen in Bit-Adini = 
 
 Discussion of the identity of the Habiru with the Hebrews is closely 
 bound up with another question of identification. As we have ob- 
 served, the (amehltu) Ha-bi-riv (or -ri) are only mentioned in this 
 form (i.e. their name only occurs spelt out syllabically) in the letters 
 of ARAD-Hiba. Many other letters, however, mention a people 
 whose name is written ideographically (ameliltu) SA-GAZ, who 
 
 ^ Also written Am-mii-ni-ra : Knudtzon, no. 136, 1. 29; no. 141, 1.3; 
 no. 143, 1. 3. * Revue Biblique, 1909, p. 72. 
 
 ^ Probably ]"!]} should be HV, but is differentiated by M. T. from the I"!}? 
 of Gen. ii : cf. W, M. Muller, Asien tind Euwpa, p. 291, note 4.
 
 70 ISRAEL'S SETTLEMENT IN CANAAN 
 
 occupy a position as freebooters and aggressors against constituted 
 authority identical with that occupied by the Habiru. The question 
 is whether SA-GAZ is merely the ideographic method of writing 
 Habiru, and the reading Habiru to be assumed wherever the 
 ideogram occurs. The importance of this is to be found in the 
 widespread character of the aggressions of the SA-GAZ. If the 
 Habiru are identical with them, they must have permeated not 
 merely southern and central Canaan, but also Phoenicia and 
 northern Syria ; for the SA-GAZ are mentioned, e.g., witli especial 
 frequency in the letters of Rib- Adda, governor of Gebal, as 
 employed by Abd-Asirta and Aziru in the reduction of the Phoe- 
 nician cities.^. The view that SA-GAZ is to be read as Habiru, 
 *» which has always been regarded with favour by the majority of 
 scholars, is now generally supposed to have been placed bej^ond 
 question by Prof. Winckler's discovery of the interchange of the 
 two terms in documents from Boghaz Keui. This scholar states 
 that, besides mention of the SA-GAZ-people, there is also reference 
 to the SA-GAZ-gods, and that as a variant of this latter there 
 exists the reading ildni Ha-bi-ri, i.e. ' Habiru-gods '.^ This dis- 
 covery, while certainly proving a general equivalence of the Habiru 
 with the SA-GAZ, does not, however, necessarily involve the con- 
 clusion that SA-GAZ in the Amarna correspondence was always 
 and everywhere understood and i^ronounced as Habiru: indeed, 
 the contrary can be shown to be the case. 
 
 We have definite evidence in proof that (amelu) SA-GAZ was 
 ordinarily read in Babylonian as habbatum, ' robber ' or ' plunderer '." 
 No doubt the common Babylonian verb sagdsu, which means to 
 destroy, slay, and the like, is a semiticization of the Sumerian 
 ideogram ; and the element GAZ, which in its pictographic form 
 clearly represents a cutting or striking weapon,* has by itself the 
 
 ^ All allusions to the SA-G-AZ are collected by Weber in Knudtzon, p. 1147. 
 
 2 Cf. MDOG. XXXV, p. 25 note. For the former, cf. Figulla and Weidner, 
 Keilschrifttexte aus Boghazkoi 1, no. 1, Rev. 1. 50; no. 3, Rev. 1. 5; for the 
 latter, no. 4, Rev. col. iv, 1. 29. 
 
 ^ In a syllabary given in Rawlinson, Cuneiform Inscriptions of Western Asia, 
 ii. 26, 13 g-h, {amelu) SA-GAZ is explained by liah-h[a-tum]. In another tablet 
 (cf. R. C. Thompson, The Reports of Magicians and Astrologers of Nineveh and 
 Babylon, i, no. 103, obv. 7) the ideogram is glossed by hab-ha-a-te. 
 
 Pi 
 
 The pictographic linear script was written from top to bottom of a document.
 
 EXTERNAL EVIDENCE 71 
 
 values ddhu, ' to kill, fight, strike ', mahdsu, ' to smite, wound' (Heb. 
 yno), &c.^ Possibly the root hahdtu, from which habbatum is 
 derived, though it regularly means ' to plunder ', may have an 
 original connexion with the root hbt which runs through Hebrew, 
 Aramaic, and Arabic with the sense ' to strike or beat ' — in which 
 case the root-sense of habbatu')n would be ' cut-throat ' rather than 
 ' thief ' (the two actions implied are commonly united among the 
 nomad tribes of the Arabian desert). 
 
 "WTien the pictographs came to be modified into groups of wedges (cuneiform), 
 and the lines ran from left to right, the signs were correspondingly turned 
 
 sideways, and the ideogram in question became J^^^_j^» 
 
 The explanation of the ijictograph given above is likewise adopted by Barton, 
 The Origin and Development of Buhijlonian Writing, no. 194 ('some instrument 
 for crushing or fighting or both '). This GAZ seems to be the root which under- 
 lies a large number of Semitic triliterals which have been modified in different 
 ways to express different kinds of cutting ; e. g. Heb. rffJ, whence T\''\l ' cutting ', 
 so 'cut stone', New Heb. XJ3, Syr. )j^'to cut off; Heb. TIJ 'to shear', whence 
 "3 'fleece shorn off' (Aram. NJ3, Syr. JTx^. Bab. gizzu Sa sent), ' mown grass ' ; 
 Heb. ?"\^ 'to tear away', Ar. J-a. 'to cutoff'; Heb. D"M, whence D|3 'locusts' 
 as devouring (cutting off) vegetation. New Heb. DW, Syr. pI^ Ar. 'Ji, Eth. 
 VHffD ' to cut oft' ' ; Heb. yi:, whence y]?. ' stock, stem ' as cut portion (Syr. 
 )l^)<4s,)> ^^'- 9-j^ 'to cut off', Eth. VHO 'to saw in two'; Heb. Ti: 'to cut, 
 divide ', New Heb., Aram., Ar., Eth., id. GAZ appears in the slightly modified 
 forms KAS, KAS, KAS, and we have the first of these running through another 
 large series of roots; Heb. 2"^P 'to cut off', 3^i? 'shape', also 'extremity' as 
 cut off; n-Vp 'to cut off', nifi? ' end, extremity', New Heb., Aram., Nl|i?, Syr. 
 )lo 'to break off', Ar. US ' to be remote ' ; Heb. .Tifp, whence pif^ 'judge' as 
 deciding, Ar. ^ ' to decide judicially ', ^l3 Kddi (the differentiation between 
 ^ and Us appears to have been made for the purpose of differentiating the 
 sense) ; Heb. y"i*P ' to break off ', when yifpO ' corner-buttress ', Syr. ^is, 
 Ar. Iki (if for ^^) ; Heb. y)ip 'to cut off', Y\>. 'end', Syr. ^ 'to make 
 an agreement ' (decision), Ar. ^% Bab. kasdsu ' to cut off ' ; Heb. TSp ' to be 
 short' (lit. 'cut short'). New Heb., Aram., Syr., Ar. id. (but probably not lip 
 ' to reap ', whence T'Vi? ' harvest ', which seems to embody, not the idea of 
 ctitting, but that of linding, and should be analysed as n^-p, belonging to the 
 SAR, SAR, ZAR, TAR, TAR, DAR series with the sense ' go round ', ' surround ', 
 80, in some cases, 'bind.' We notice an ascending scale of prefixed initial 
 gutturals employed for triliteralization in 1i*~X^ nx-y, lifn, "lif-p : cf. Burney, 
 Judges, p. 69; Ball, Semitic and Sumerian in HiJprecht Anniversary Volume, 
 pp. 41 f.). The Sumerian knife-sign in its values KUD(T, T), KUD(T, T), 
 GUD(T, T) appears to represent an allied root. 
 1 Cf! Brunnow, 4714ff.
 
 72 ISRAEL'S SETTLEMENT IN CANAAN 
 
 That (cnnelu) SA-GAZ has its normal value in the Amarna 
 letters is placed beyond doubt by the occurrence, in a letter from 
 Yapahi of Gezer ^ of the form (amelu) SA-GAZ-ME§ (-tum).^ Here 
 -tiLTii is a Phonetic Cc'.nplement,2 pointing to a Babylonian equiva- 
 lent which ends with this syllable — a fact which indicates the 
 equivalent habbatum and excludes Habiru (or -ri). In view of 
 this we may infer that in a letter from Dagan-takala,* in which he 
 begs help of the king of Egypt — ' Deliver me from the mighty 
 foes, from the hand of the '(amel'dtu) SA-GA-AZ-ME§, the robber- 
 people {ciineliXtu ha-la-ti), the Sutu (ameliitu Su-ti-i) ' — we have, 
 not the specification of three distinct classes of foes, but of two 
 only, aTJieMtu ha-ba-ti being simply an explanatory gloss upon 
 {ameUhi) SA-GA-AZ-MES.^ 
 
 We conclude, then, that wherever the ideogram SA-GAZ stands 
 in the Amarna letters, the equivalent that was understood and 
 read was not Hahiru but habbatum, 'the robber-people' or 
 'brigands'. It is a different question whether. the Habiru were 
 included among the people who could be classed as habbatum. 
 That this is to be affirmed appears to be certain from the equivalent 
 *SA-GAZ-gods' = 'Habiru-gods', discovered by Winckler in the 
 
 1 Knucltzon, no. 299, 1. 26. 
 
 ^ MES, which means ' multitude ' (explained in syllabaries by Babylonian 
 tna'adu), is used as the sign of the plural. 
 
 ^ A Phonetic Complement is often used in cuneiform in order to obviate 
 doubt as to the precise Babylonian word or form denoted by an ideogram. 
 Thus, e. g.,the name Uta-napistim, which is commonly written ideographically 
 UD-ZI, often has the syllable -tim added to indicate that ZI has the value 
 napiHim. MU, which means ' to speak' in Sumerian, and so can be used for 
 the Babylonian zakciru with the same meaning, may be written MU(-rtr), 
 ^IU(-;'a) to indicate the precise form of the verb izakkar, izakkara. Thus 
 perfect clearness is gained without the labour of writing the forms syllabically 
 i-zak-kar, i-zak-ka-ra. * Knudtzon, no. 318. 
 
 ^ It is true that ameliitu ha-ba-ti is not preceded by the diagonal wedge which 
 as a rule marks a gloss; but this is sometimes omitted (cf. Knudtzon, no. 14y, 
 1. 31 ; no. 288. 1. 34. In no. 288, 1. 52 the wedge follows the gloss at the 
 beginning of the next line.) The fact that Dagan-takala (or his scribe) did 
 not know the ideogram GAZ, and so was obliged to write GA-AZ (which only 
 occurs in this passage), favours the view that he may have glossed the ideogram 
 in order to avoid misunderstanding. Dhorme [Revue Biblique, 1909, p. 69) 
 compares Knudtzon, no. 195, 11. 24 ff., where Namyawaza offers to place his 
 SA-GAZ and his Sutu at the disposal of the Pharaoh. ' These in fact are the 
 two designations which describe the soldiers of the irregular and rebel army. 
 There is no ground for regarding the Ha-ba-ti as a third group. Everything 
 thus favours reading GAZ or S.\-GAZ as Habbatu.' In Knudtzon, no. 207, 1. 21, 
 we actually find (anielu) GAZ-MES followed by the diagonal wedge and then 
 the syllable ha-, after which the tablet is broken and illegible.
 
 EXTERNAL EVIDENCE 73 
 
 documents from Boghaz Keui.^ When, further, while ARAD-Hiba 
 refers exclusively to the encroachments of the Habiru, and does not 
 mention the SA-GAZ, other princes in the south refer in a similar 
 connexion and in similar terms to the encroachments of the SA-GAZ 
 and make no allusion to the Habiru, the inference is inevitable that 
 the terms Habiru and SA-GAZ refer in these letters to one and the 
 same people.^ 
 
 We must next notice that SA-GAZ, though meaning habbatum, 
 ' robbers ', is not, as used in the Amarna Letters, a mere class-term 
 (i. e. applicable to any body of people, of whatever race, who might 
 adopt a bandit-life), but is definitely employed of a tribe or tribes 
 from a 2^ciTticular locality, and united by racial affinity. This is 
 clear from the fact that the ideogram is followed in two of its 
 occurrences by the affix KI, ' countiy ' or ' place ',^ which is used 
 both with the names of countries and districts and with the names 
 of tribes emanating from such districts. In one occurrence of 
 Habiru we likewise find KI added/ marking the term similarly as 
 racial and not merely appellative. We may assume, then, with 
 confidence that the connexion between the Habiru and the SA-GAZ 
 was a racial one ; though it does not necessarily follow that all the 
 SA-GAZ were Habiru — since, on the evidence which we have 
 
 ' Cf. p. 70. 
 
 ^ Cf. especially ARAD-Hiba's statement, ' Behold, this deed is the deed of 
 Milkili and the sons of Labaya, who have given up the King's territory to the 
 Habiru ' (Knudtzon, no. 287, 11. 29 ff.), with the statement of Biridiya ot 
 Megiddo, ' Behold, two sons of Labaya have gi[ven] their money to the 
 SA-GAZ ' (Knudtzon, no. 246, 11. 5 S.). Cf. also the words of Labaya, ' I do not 
 know whether Dumuya has gone with the SA-GAZ ' (Knudtzon, no. 254, 
 11. 32 ff.) ; and of Milkili, ' Let the King my lord know that hostility is mighty 
 against me and Suwardata ; and let the King deliver his land out of the hand 
 of the SA-GAZ ' (Knudtzon, no. 271, 11. 9 ff.) ; and of Belit-UR-MAG-ME§ ('the 
 mistress of Leba'oth ' ? Cf. Joshua xv. 32, xix. 6. UR-MAG-ME§ means 
 'lions'), 'the SA-GAZ have sent to Aijalon and Zorah, and the two sons of 
 Milkili were nearly slain ' (Knudtzon, no. 273, 11. 18 ff.). The fact that Labaya 
 and Milkili should themselves represent their relations with the SA-GAZ some- 
 what differently from ARAD-Hiba and Biridiya is only to be expected. The 
 statements of ARAD-Hiba — 'Let the King hearken unto ARAD-Hiba thy 
 servant, and send bowmen, and bring back the King's territory to the King. 
 But if there be no bowmen, the King's territory will certainly fall away to the 
 Habiru ' (Knudtzon, no. 290, 1]. 19 ff.) ; ' Should there be no bowmen this year, 
 the King my lord's territories are lost' (Knudtzon, no. 288,11. 51 ff.) — are 
 strikingly similar to the statement of Bayawa, ' Unless Yanhamu [the Egyptian 
 plenipotentiary] arrives this yeai-, the entire territories are lost to the SA-GAZ ' 
 (Knudtzon, no. 215, 11. 9ff.) ; and it can hardly be doubted that the reference 
 in each case is to the same peril. 
 
 3 Cf. Knudtzon, no. 215, 1. 15 ; no. 298, 1. 27. * Cf. Knudtzon, no. 289, 1. 24.
 
 74 ISRAEL'S SETTLEMENT IN CANAAN 
 
 reviewed, there is nothing to forbid the theory that the Habiru 
 may have been but a single clan of a larger body of people called 
 SA-GAZ.^ 
 
 Is it probable, then, that the Habiru were merely the southern 
 branch of the racial movement into M'estern Syria represented by 
 the aggressions of the SA-GAZ ? That they had gained a footing 
 not merely in the south (the district round Jerusalem), but also in 
 central Canaan, is clear from the fact that the}^ are mentioned as 
 in occupation of Shechem,^ and that the prince of Megiddo expresses 
 anxiety as to their movements.^ But there is another reference in 
 one of ARAD-Hiba's letters which seems to identify them with the 
 SA-GAZ still farther north. ' When there was a ship {or a fleet ?) 
 at sea ', he Avrites, ' the Kino-'s strono- arm held the land of Nahrima 
 and the land of Kapasi (1) ; but now the Habiru hold all the King's 
 cities.'* Here the allusion undoubtedly is to the Egyptian fleet 
 which, since the victorious campaigns of Thutmosi III, had pos- 
 sessed a base in the Phoenician harbours, and enabled the Pharaoh 
 to reach Naharin (Nahrima) with little delay, and suppress any 
 inclination to revolt in the extreme northern part of his Asiatic 
 Empire. Now, however, in the absence of this fleet, the Habiru 
 are in the ascendant, and are holding either the cities of Nahrima 
 in the north, or (more probably) the Phoenician cities which it was 
 necessary for Egypt to hold in order to maintain her footing in the 
 ports. Adopting this latter hypothesis, we see at once that the 
 SA-GAZ to whom Rib-Adda of Gebal so constantly refers as 
 employed by the Amorite chieftains Abd-Asirta and Aziru for the 
 reduction of the Phoenician cities were Habiru, as well as the 
 southern aggressors. This is a point of the first importance for 
 the elucidation of the Habiru-question. 
 
 The close connexion of the SA-GAZ-Habiru with the people 
 called Sutu is evident. Both peoples are in the service of the 
 chieftain Namyawaza as mercenaries;^ both commit aggressions 
 upon Dagan-takala ; ^ and, apparentl}', upon Yapahi of Gezer." Rib- 
 
 1 So Dhorme, Eevue BiUiqne, 1909, p. 69. 
 
 2 Cf. p. 67. 3 Cf. p. 73, foot-note 2. 
 
 * The rendering here adopted is that which is generally accepted (cf. 
 Winckler, no. 181, 11. 32 fip. ; Ball, Light from the East, p. 92; Rogers, Cunei- 
 foi-m Parallels, p. 274), from which there seems no reason to depart. It is 
 difficult to believe that Knudtzon's rendering is correct (no. 288, 11. 32fF. ; 
 followed by Barton, Archaeology of the Bible, p. 347); still less that of Ungnad 
 in Texte iind Bihler, i, p. 133. 
 
 5 Cf. Knudtzon, no. 195, 11. 27 ff. « Cf. Knudtzon, no. 318. 
 
 ' Ct. Knudtzon, nos. 297-9.
 
 EXTERNAL EVIDENCE 75 
 
 Adda of Gebal, who complains repeatedly of the aggressions of the 
 SA-GAZ, also states that one Pahura has sent Sutu who have 
 killed his Serdanu mercenaries.^ Concerning the Sutu we happen 
 to be fairly well-informed. We learn from a chronicle that the 
 Kassite king of Kardunias, Kadasman-Harbe I (c. end of the 
 fifteenth century b. c), ' effected the conquest of the marauding 
 Sutu from east to west, and destroyed their power, built fortresses 
 in Amurru, &g.'^ Adad-Nirari I of Assyria (c. 1325 B.C.) states 
 that his father Arik-den-ili 'conquered the whole of the wide- 
 spreading Kutu. the Ahlamu, and Sutu '." The Ahlamu are known 
 to have been an Aramaean nomadic or semi-noraadic people. The 
 Hittite king, Hattusili II, makes ' the Ahlamu-peril ' his excuse for 
 having ceased diplomatic relations with the king of Kardunias 
 (Kadasman-Enlil IIj.-i Tiglath-Pileser I (c. 1100 B.C.) tells us 
 that he defeated ' the Aramaean Ahlamu ' who inhabited the district 
 in the neighbourhood of Carchemish.^ It is clear from these 
 references that the Sutu must have been a nomad tribe inhabiting 
 the northern part of the Syrian desert to the west of the upper 
 Euphrates ; ^ and with this agrees the statement of Asur-uballit of 
 Assyria that the Sutu have detained the messengers of Ahnaton,'' 
 since the Egyptian envoys would have to cross this desert on their 
 way to Assyria. 
 
 We may now observe that the Egyptian term for the Semitic 
 nomads of the Asiatic desert is t^asu, a word which seems to be 
 foreign to the language, and which has been plausibly connected 
 with the West-Semitic root •IDK' §dsd, 'to plunder'.^ The 6asio 
 
 1 Cf. Knucltzon, no. 122, 11. 31 ff. 
 
 2 Cf. Winckler, Alt oriental ische Forschungen, i, p. 115. Winckler makes 
 Kadasman-Harbe the second king of that name {c. 1252 B. c.) ; but cf. King, 
 History of Babylon, jj. 243, n. 1. The 'fortresses in Amurru' were probably 
 built to command the important caravan-route from Babylonia to Assyria ; 
 cf. p. 76, foot-note 1. 
 
 3 Cf. Tablet, 11. 19 f, in Keilinschriftliche BiUioihek, i, p. 4 ; Budge and King, 
 Annals of the Kings of Assyria, p. 6; and, for the reading Arik-den-ili and not 
 Pudi-ilu (as the name was formerly read), King and Hall, Egypt and Western 
 Asia, p. 396. 
 
 * Cf. Winckler, 3ID0G, xxxv, p. 22 ; Figulla and Weidner, Keilschrifttexte 
 cms Bogliazk'Oi^, no. 10, obv. 11. 36 f. 
 
 5 Cf. Annals, v, 11. 44 ff. in Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek, i, p. 32 ; Budge and 
 King, Annals of the Kings of Assyria, p. 73. 
 
 •^ It is generally supposed that Shoa' and Koa of Ezek. xxiii. 23 are the Sutu 
 and Kutu. On the Sutu in relation to the Aramaeans cf. Streck, Ueber die 
 iilteste Geschichte der Aramaer, in Klio, vi (1906), pp. 209 IF. 
 
 ' Knudtzon, no. 16, 11. 37 ft'. 
 
 « Cf. W. M. Miiller, Asien nnd Europa, p. 131 ; Ed. Meyer, Israeliten, p. 324.
 
 76 ISRAEL'S SETTLEMENT IN CANAAN 
 
 then, are simply ' the phinderers ' or ' brigands ' ; and the agreement 
 in meaning of this designation with the Babjdonian hahbatum, 
 which, as we have seen, is the equivalent of the ideogram SA-GAZ, 
 can hardly be merely accidental. We shall see presently that the 
 Egyptian king Sety I, in referring to the tSasu, undoubtedly means 
 the SA-GAZ-Habiru who were making aggressions in Canaan. 
 While, therefore, the meaning of SA-GAZ favours the conclusion 
 that the appellation belongs to a nomad-people, the connexion of 
 the SA-GAZ with the Sutu suggests that, like these latter, they 
 belonged to the north S3^rian desert, the region which both cuneiform 
 and Biblical records associate with the Aramaeans. These facts 
 should be taken in connexion with the further facts that the SA- 
 GAZ are principally mentioned as employed by Abd-Asirta and his 
 sons, and that the land of Amurru, over which these chieftains held 
 sway, extended (as Winckler has proved from the Boghaz Keui 
 documents ^) from the Lebanon eastward across the Syrian desert 
 to the Euphrates, thus embracing precisely the northern part of 
 the desert inhabited by Aramaean nomads. Hence the conclusion 
 that the SA-GAZ — and therefore the Habiru — were Aramaean 
 nomads seems to be raised to a practical certainty. 
 
 Now the Old Testament definitely connects the ancestors of the 
 Hebrews with the Aramaeans. Abraham is not himself termed an 
 Aramaean, but he has Aramaean connexions. Rebekah, the wife of 
 
 The Semitic root is only known to occur in Hebrew, and is of fairly frequent 
 occurrence in the Old Testament. Meyer (loc. cit., n. 1) notices the interesting 
 fact that it is used in 1 Sam. xiv. 48, which relates Saul's conquest of the 
 Amalekite Bedawin on the border of Egypt : — ' he smote Amalek, and delivered 
 Israel from the hand of his plunderer' (IpID'B'). 
 
 1 MDOG, XXXV, pp. 24 f. Cf. also King, History of Babylon, pp. 237 f. The 
 evidence is found in the important letter of the Hittite king Hattusili II to 
 Kadasman-Enlil II, king ofKardunias (Babylon), to which allusion has already 
 been made (p. lb). The Babylonian king had made complaint against Banti- 
 ?inni, chieftain of Amurru (a successor of Abd-Asirta and Aziru), the vassal of 
 Hattusili, on the charge of harassing his land, and when taxed by the Hittite 
 king with the misdemeanour, Banti-sinni had replied by advancing a counter- 
 charge for thirty talents of silver against the people of Akkad. It seems, 
 therefore, to follow that the district known as Amurru, which was under the 
 SAvay of Banti-sinni, must have extended to the Euphrates and been contiguous 
 with the territory of the king of Kardunias. The Amorite chieftain would 
 thus have command of the imj^ortant caravan-route from Babylonia to Syria, 
 and failure to satisfy the demand for dues which he doubtless exacted from the 
 caravans using the route seems to have led him to indemnify himself by 
 encroachments upon Babylonian territory. The full text of the letter has now 
 been published in Figulla and Weidner, Keilschrifttexte aus Boghazkoi^, no. 10. 
 The relevant portion will be found in Rev. 11. 26 if.
 
 EXTERNAL EVIDENCE '71 
 
 his son Isaac, is brought from Aram-naharaim, and is the daughter 
 of Bethuel, the son of Nahor his brother (Gen, xxiv Jj. Bethuel is 
 termed ' the Aramaean ' (Gen. xxv. 20 P, xxviii. 5 P), and so is his 
 son Laban, the brother of Rebekah (Gen. xxxi. 20, 24 E). Jacob's 
 wives are Aramaeans (the daughters of Laban), and he himself 
 is called ' a vagabond Aramaean ' (inN ■'Qis', Deut. xxvi. 5 j. On his 
 return from Paddan-Aram he re-enters Canaan bearing the new 
 name Israel (Gen. xxxii. 28 J, xxxv. 10 P), together with his many 
 sons (or clans), and takes up his abode at or near Shechem, con- 
 cerning his relations with which city variant traditions are extant.^ 
 The mere fact, then, that the situation pictured in the Amarna 
 letters is that Aramaean nomads are flocking into Syria-Palestine 
 and taking forcible possession of many of its cities might by itself 
 lead us plausibly to infer that the eastern wing of this immigration 
 probably included the ancestors of Israel — more especially since 
 ARAD-Hiba states that they (the Habiru) are in possession of the 
 land of Shechem.2 When, moreover, we add to this the fact that 
 the equivalence between the names ' Habiru ' and ' Hebrew ' is 
 perfect,^ the inference is surely raised to a high degree of 
 probability. 
 
 The only fact which may make us hesitate in assuming the 
 identity of the Habiru with the Hebrews as proved bej-ond the 
 possibility of a doubt is the occurrence of the term Ha-bir-a-a, 
 i.e. a gentilic form 'Habiraean', in two Babylonian documents; in 
 each case in application to men who bear Kassite names — Harbisihu * 
 and Kudurra.^ If, as it is reasonable to suppose. Ha-hir-a-a is the 
 gentilic of Habiru,^ the fact that the only two names of Habiru- 
 people that are known to us should be Kassite is certainly remark- 
 able ; and the conclusion that the Habiru were Kassites has been 
 
 ^ Cf. pp. 43 f., and the note on Shechem in Burney, Judges, pp. 269 f. 
 
 2 Cf. p. 67. 3 Cf. pp. 68 f. 
 
 * Cf. Rawlinson, Cuneifoiin Inscriptions of Western Asia, iv.^ 34, 2 ; and, for 
 
 translitei'ation and translation of the document, Winckler, Altorientalische 
 Forschungen, i, pp. 389-96. The letter, written by an unnamed Babylonian 
 king, mentions a king of Assyria named Ninib-Tukulti-Asur, ■who seems to have 
 reigned towards the end of the thirteenth century B. c. (cf. Johns, Ancient 
 Assyria, pp. 66 if.), i. e. during the latter part of the Kassite period in Babylon. 
 
 ® Cf. Scheil, Recueil deTravaux, xvi (1894), pp. 32 f. The name occurs on a 
 boundary-stone of the time of Marduk-ahi-erba of the Fourth Babylonian 
 dynasty (1073 b. c). 
 
 ^ Hommel, however, regards the similarity between Habiru and Habira as 
 purely fortuitous, taking the latter to mean an inhabitant of the land Hapir or 
 Apir, i. e. that part of Elam which lay over against eastern Arabia. Cf. Ancient 
 Hebrew Traditiotx, p. 236 ; Gnindriss, p. 7.
 
 78 ISRAEL'S SETTLEMENT IX CANAAN 
 
 adopted by several scholars.^ Recently, Pere Scheil has published 
 a tablet bearing a brief memorandum which mentions the Habiru 
 (amelii Ha-hl-ri exactly as in the Amarna Letters) at Larsa in the 
 reign of the Elamite Rim-Sin, the conteraporarj'- of Hammurabi, 
 seven centuries earlier than the Amarna Letters.^ This scholar's 
 conclusion (based on this occurrence and on the Kassite names above 
 mentioned) is as follows: 'The Habiru were in origin an Elamite, 
 KaSsite, or Lower Mesopotamian people ... In any case they served 
 among the forces of the Elamite dynasty at Larsa. Without doubt 
 they were also employed in the far countries to the west, where the 
 supremacy of Kudur-Mabuk, Hammurabi, Ammiditana, &c., main- 
 tained itself with more or less authority, thanks to the presence of 
 armed troops.' The proof that Kassite troops were stationed by 
 these monarchs in Syria-Palestine is, however, non-existent ; and 
 still less (apart from the assumption that the Habiru were Kassites) 
 can the presence of such troops in the west be proved for six 
 centuries later." 
 
 There is no reason, so far as we can say, why Rim- Sin should 
 not have employed Aramaean (Hebrew) tribesmen as mercenaries 
 
 ^ So Halevy in Jbtt^viflZ Asiatique {\S^1), p. 547 ; Scheil in Recueil de Travaux, 
 loc. cit. ; Hilpreclit, Assi/riaca (1894), p. 33 n. ; Reisner in Journal of Biblical 
 Literature (1897), pp. 143 ff. ; Lagrange in Bevue BiUiqae (1899 , pp. 127 ft'. 
 
 ^ Revue d'Assyriolorfie. xii (1915), pp. 114 f. The memorandum runs : ' These 
 are 4 ior 5 ?) garments for the officers of the Habiru which Ibni-Adad . . . has 
 received. Levied (?) on the property of the temple of Samas by Ili-ippalzam. 
 [Month of] Nisan, 11th day, [year of J Rim-Sin, king.' 
 
 ^ It is true that ARAD-Hiba speaks of the outrages committed by the KaSi 
 people, who seem on one occasion nearly to have killed him in his own house 
 <Knudtzon, no. 287, 11. 32 f., 71 fi'.) ; and Biridiya of Megiddo apparently couples 
 them with the SA-GAZ as ia the pay of the sons of Labaya (Knudtzon, no. 246, 
 11. 5 f. : the reading is uncertain, as the tablet is broken ; but traces of /la- can be 
 seen after amelnt mat). Since, however, Rib- Adda of Gebal more than once begs 
 the Pharaoh to send his KaSi troops to protect Egyptian interests in Phoenicia 
 (Knudtzon, no. 131, 1. 13 ; no. 133. 1. 17 ; conjecturally restored in no. 127, 1. 22), 
 and in one of these passages (no. 133, 1. 17) K((-[Si] is a gloss upon [Me-lu-]Jja, i.e. 
 Ethiopia (Heb. ti^'S KuS). it can scarcely be doubted that the people of identical 
 name mentioned by ARAD-Hiba and Biridij'a were likewise Sudanese mer- 
 cenaries at the disposal of the Egyptian high-commissioner, who may well 
 have proved themselves hostile and troublesome to the governors of Jerusalem 
 and Megiddo.. It must be recollected that ARAD-Hiba actually charged the 
 high-commissioner with favouring the Habiru and hating the city-govemorr. 
 (Knudtzon, no. 286, 11. 16 ft'. ; cf. above, p'. 67). The identity of the KaSi with 
 the Sudanese mercenaries in all these passages is assumed by Weber (Knudtzon, 
 pp. llOOf.). There is the same ambiguity in regard to the term (Kushite or 
 Kassite) in cuneifonn records as exists in the case of the Hebrew ti'O (cf. 
 Skinner, Genesis, p. 208 ; Burnej-, Judges, p. 64).
 
 EXT'ERNAL evidence 79 
 
 c. 2100 B.C. Abraham 'the Hebrew', who is assigned to this 
 period in Gen. xiv, is earliest associated with the city of Ur 
 (Gen. xi. 28, 31, xv. 7) on the right bank of the Euphrates and 
 bordering on the Syrian desert, with which Larsa on the left of the 
 river was closely connected.^ There were SA-GAZ in Babylonia | 
 in Hammurabi's reign, and their overseer bore a Semitic Babylonian j 
 name, Anum-pi-Sin.^ If such tribesmen came later on into the ; 
 regular employ of the Kassite kings, it would not be strange if some 
 of them adopted Kassite names.^ We find, then, in this last men- 
 tioned evidence, no insuperable objection to the identification of the 
 Habiru with the Hebrews in the widest sense of the latter term. 
 
 Before leaving the Habiru- question, one other competing theory 
 as to the identity of this people may be noticed — less on account of 
 its intrinsic strength than because it has been widely brought by its 
 author before the English-speaking public in works of a popular 
 character. Prof. Sayce* has advanced the view that the Habiru 
 were ' Hittite condottieri ', basing this theory upon a discovery 
 which he claims as the result of his attempted decipherment of the 
 Hittite inscriptions, viz. that the name Kas was used throughout 
 the Hittite region, the kings of Carchemish, for example, calling 
 themselves ' kings of the country of Kas '. He takes references in 
 the Amarna Letters to the land of Kassu (Kassi in oblique forms) to 
 refer to the land of the Hittites, alleging that reference to Babylonia is 
 out of the question, since this is called Kardunias by the Kassites — 
 in answer to which it is sufficient to remark that the full title 
 claimed by the kings of the Third (Kassite) Babylonian dynasty, as 
 appears from a short inscription of Kara-indas I (c. 1425 B. C.) is 
 ' King of Babylon, King of Sumer and Akkad, King of Kassu 
 (Ka-as-su-u), King of Kardunias',^ Sayce then claims that the 
 Kasi people of ARAD-Hiba's letter "^ are identified with the Habiru 
 
 ^ A regular part of the title claimed by Rim-Sin is 'he that cared for Ur'. 
 Cf. Thureau-Dangin, Die sumerischen unci akkadischen Koiiigsinschriften, pp. 
 216 if. 
 
 ^ Cf. King, Letters and Inscriptions of Hammurabi, no. 35 ; Ungnad, Bnhi/- 
 lonische Briefe, no. 26, with note h. 
 
 ^ Cf. Winckier in Die Keilinschriften nnd das Alte Testament (3rd ed.), p. 197, 
 n. 1. Knudtzon (p. 47, n. 8) maintains (against Scheil) that the name of 
 Kudurra's father, which is read as Ba-si-is, seems not to be KaSsite. 
 
 * Prof. Sayce's fullest statement of his theory is found in Expository Times, 
 XV (1900), pp. 282 f. 
 
 ^ Cf. Rawlinson, Cuneiform Inscriptions of Western Asia, iv.^ 36 [38], no. 3 ; 
 Delitzsch, Wo lag das Paradies ? p. 128. 
 
 « Cf. p. 78, n. 3.
 
 80 ISRAEL'S SETTLEMENT IN CANAAN 
 
 in the passage in which the writer, having accused Milkili and the 
 sons of Labaya of giving the King's land to the Habiru, then goes 
 on to say, ' Behold, King my lord, I am righteous as regards the 
 Kasi people : let the King ask the high-commissioner whether [or 
 no] they have dealt very violently and brought serious evil to pass.' ^ 
 Most readers, however, must surely infer that the passage, on the 
 contrary, distinguishes between the two peoples. Why should the 
 writer apply difierent appellations to one people in successive 
 sentences? Obviously ARAD-Hiba, having made his own accusa- 
 tion against his enemies, then proceeds to deal with an accusation 
 which tJiey have made against him — probably resistance to the 
 Sudanese troops involving bloodshed, as we may infer from his 
 later statement that they had nearly killed him in his own house. 
 The letters from the Canaanite princes are full of such mutual 
 recriminations. Equally groundless is the statement that the sons 
 of Arzawa — who must certainly have been Hittites ^ — mentioned in 
 one letter ^ take the place of the Habiru in other letters. The passage 
 in question says, ' Behold, Milkili, does he not revolt with the sons 
 of Labaya and the sons of Arzawa to give up the King's territory 
 to them?' Here, if the sons of Arzawa are Habiru, we should 
 surely draw the same inference with regard to the sons of Labaj'a — 
 at any rate, there is no reason why we should draw the inference 
 with regard to the first group any more than with regard to the 
 second. In two of the three other passages in question,* however, the 
 sons of Labaya are distinguished from the Habiru, for the former 
 are associated with Milkili in giving up the King's territory to the 
 latter. 
 
 J^astly, Prof. Sayce's statement that Habiru (-ri) cannot be a 
 prc^per name, because it is not Hahird (a gentilic form) is directly 
 contradicted by the fact that we have SutiX (-ti), Ahlainil {-mi) 
 which are certainly tribal names and yet are not gentilics ; ^ his 
 explanation of the name as meaning ' confederates ' (like Heb. 
 hdbher, plural h^bherim, the ordinary philological equivalent for 
 which in Babylonian is ibru ^) is ruled out by the occurrence of the 
 gentilic Habird with the two Kassite names which we have already 
 noticed,' since such a gentilic can only be formed from a proper 
 
 1 Knudtzon, no. 287. ^ Cf. Buiney, Judges, Introd. pp. Ixxxiii f. 
 
 '^ Knudtzon, no. 289 = Winckler, 182-185. 
 
 * Knudtzon, nos. 287, 290, 289, 11. 21 if. = Winckler, 180, 183, 185. 
 ^ On these peoples cf. pp. 74 f . 
 
 ^ The term ibru occurs once in the Amarua Letters : cf. Knudtzon, no. 126, 
 1. 16. ' Cf. p. 77.
 
 EXTERNAL EVIDENCE 81 
 
 name, and is excluded no less by the occurrence once of {ameliXtn) 
 Ha-bi-ri (KI) which marks the name as racial (a tribe from a par- 
 ticular district ^) ; and his finding in the last-mentioned method of 
 writing the name an indication of the association of the 'con- 
 federates ' with the city of Hebron (assumed to mean ' Confederate- 
 city ') takes no account of the fact that we cannot dissociate Hahiri 
 (KI) from the two occurrences of SA-GAZ (KI) which we have 
 discussed with it.^ 
 
 At the close of Ahnaton's reign (c. 1358) and during the reigns 
 of the remaining Pharaohs of the Eighteenth dynasty, Egypt's hold 
 upon her Asiatic dominions seems almost entirely to have been 
 relaxed. The Hittite monarch Subbiluliuma thoroughly consoli- 
 dated his power north of the Lebanons, but does not seem to have 
 attempted to extend his arms southwards into Canaan ; and here 
 the Habiru and other turbulent elements in the population were 
 left to work their will unchecked by any effective control. It was 
 not till the reign of Sety I (c. 1313 B. c), the second king of the 
 Nineteenth dynasty, that effective measures were attempted for the 
 restoration of Egypt's suzerainty. At the beginning of this king's 
 reign he received a report of the condition of affairs in Canaan 
 which ran as follows : ' The vanquished Sasu, they plan rebellion, 
 rising against the Asiatics of Haru. They have taken to cursing 
 and quarrelling, each of them slaying his neighbour, and they dis- 
 regard the laws of the palace.' ^ This report, which summarizes the 
 situation in Canaan as we have it in the Amarna Letters, is of high 
 interest as indicating that the SA-GAZ-Habiru of the latter were 
 identical with the people whom the Egyptians called Sasu, i. e. 
 Asiatic Bedawin.* Haru was the designation applied by the 
 Egyptians to southern Palestine, and ' the Asiatics of Haru ' are 
 doubtless the vassal Canaanite chieftains to whom the authority of 
 Egypt was delegated. 
 
 In two campaigns Sety succeeded largely in restoring Egyptian 
 authority in Canaan ; but made no effective move against the 
 
 1 Cf. p. 73. 
 
 - Discussions of the Habiru and SA-GAZ which take fullest account of 
 available evidence are Winckler, Geschichte Israels, i (1895), pp. 16-21 ; 
 Altorientalische Forschunqen, iii (1902), pp. 90-4 ; Die Keilhischriften und das 
 Alte Testament (ed. 3, 1903), pp. 196 ff. ; Knudtzon, pp. 45-53; Weber in 
 Knudtzon, pp. 1146-8, 1336 ; Dhorme in Revue Biblique, 1909, pp. 67-73 ; 
 Bohl, Kanaander und Hebraer (1911), pp. 83-96. 
 
 ^ Cf. Breasted, Ancient llecords of Egi/pt, iii, § 101. 
 
 • Cf. the remarks on pp. 75 f. as to the identity in meaning of Sasu with 
 SA-GAZ = hahhaium. 
 
 B. G
 
 82 ISRAEL'S SETTLEMENT IN CANAAN 
 
 Hittites, and had to content himself with concluding a treaty with 
 Mursili/ Subbiluliuma's son and second successor, the terms of which 
 probably left Canaan and the Phoenician coast to Egypt, and the 
 whole of Syria north of the Lebanons to the Hittites. It is interest- 
 ing to note that Sety (like his successor Ra'messe II) mentions 
 among his conquests a district called 'Asaru, corresponding to the 
 hinterland of southern Phoenicia ^ — precisely the position assigned 
 in the Old Testament to the Israelite tribe of Asher. 
 
 The expeditions into Canaan of Ra'messe II (c. 1292 B. c), and 
 his long struggle with the Hittites, offer us (except for the allusion 
 to Asher already noticed) nothing which bears directly on our 
 subject. Ra'messe II reigned for sixty- seven years, and his son 
 Mineptah was an elderly man when he succeeded him (c. 1225 B. c). 
 This king's accession seems to have been the signal for a revolt in 
 Canaan which he quelled in his third year. Mineptah's reference 
 to this campaign is, from the Biblical point of view, of the highest 
 interest, for in it we find Israel mentioned among Palestinian 
 localities — Pekanau (i. e. 'the Canaan'), Ashkelon, Gezer, Yenoam, 
 Haru (i. e. southern Palestine) — as plundered and subdued.^ Minep- 
 tah's statement is 'Israel is desolated, his seed is not',* and the 
 name Israel is marked by the determinative meaning ' men ', 
 shewing that it denotes a people and not a country. 
 
 We have now noticed all external allusions which seem to bear 
 more or less directly upon the early history of Israel. There 
 remains the task of attempting to bring them into relation with 
 the Biblical traditions which we have already discussed. As a 
 
 ^ Mentioned in the treaty of Ra'messe II with Hattnsili II. This speaks of 
 a treaty with Muwattalli (Mursili's successor) ; but there can be no doubt that 
 the name is an error for Mursili : cf. Breasted, Ancient Records of Egypt, iii, 
 § 377, note c. 
 
 = Cf. W. M. :\[uller, Asien unci Europa, pp. 236 ff. 
 
 ' The inscription in which this reference occurs was discovered by Petrie in 
 1896, and a full account of it was given by him in the Contenqyorary Review for 
 May of the same year, Cf. also Petrie, History of Eyypt, iii, p. 114 ; Breasted, 
 Ancient Records of Egypt, iii, §§ 602 ff, 
 
 ^ In the expression ' his seed is not ', seed seems to mean posterity ; and the 
 phrase does not mean ' their crops are destroyed ', as explained by Petrie and 
 many scholars after him. This is clear from the fact that the same expression 
 is used five times elsewhere of other conquered foes (cf. Breasted, Ancient 
 Records of Egypt, iii, § 604), e.g. of the sea-peoples who endeavoured to invade 
 Egypt in the reign of Ra'messe III, of whom this king says, 'Those who reached 
 my border are desolated, their seed is not,' Here reference to 'crops' is 
 obviously out of the question.
 
 CONCLUSIONS 83 
 
 preliminary to this the question of prime importance is tlie date 
 which is to be assigned to the Exodus from Egypt. On this point, 
 fortunately, we possess information which may fairly be regarded 
 as reliable. Exod. i. 1 1 J states that the Israelites, under the system 
 of forced labour imposed upon them, 'built for Pharaoh store- 
 cities, Pithom and Ra'amses ' ; and M. Naville has proved that the 
 site of Pithom (called in Egyptian P-etom, i. e. ' the abode of Etom ', 
 a form of the Sun-god) was the modern Tell el-Mashuta, in the east 
 of the Wady Tumilat, near the ancient frontier of Egypt, and that 
 the founder of the city was Ra'messe 11.^ Thus, granted the his- 
 torical truth of the Israelite tradition (and in such a matter there is 
 no reason to suspect it), it follows that Ra'messe II (c. 129.2- 
 1225 B.C.) was the Pharaoh of the oppression, and his successor Minep- 
 tab (c. 1225-1215 B.C.) probably the Pharaoh of the Exodus.^ If this 
 is so, however, we observe at once that the external allusions which 
 seem to indicate the presence of Israelite tribes in Canaan are all 
 prior to the Exodus ; and that two of them appear to postulate the 
 existence there of Israelite elements which must have been distinct 
 from those that made their escape from Egypt under Mineptah. 
 Asher is occupying in the reigns of Sety I and Ra'messe II the 
 precise position in Galilee which, according to later Biblical tradi- 
 tion, was allotted to him after the settlement in Canaan efi'ected 
 through the conquests of Joshua ; and a people named Israel forms 
 a tribal element in Canaan (as is implied by its mention in the 
 midst of Canaanite place-names ^) at a date nearly coincident with 
 
 ^ Cf. Naville, The Store City of Pithom and the Eoute of the Exodus (ed. 1, 
 1885 ; ed. 4, 1903) ; W. M. Miiller in Encyclopaedia Bihlica, 3782 ff. ; Sayce in 
 Hastings, Dictionary of the Bible, iii, pp. 886 f. ; Driver, Exodus (Camhridge 
 Bible), pp. XXX, 4. 
 
 ^ So at least we infer from Exod. ii. 23, iv. 19 J, which indicate that, in the 
 view of the narrator, the Pharaoh of the Exodus was the next after the great 
 oppressor. Obviously, however, we cannot postulate the same degree of 
 accuracy for this conclusion as for the statement of Exod. i. 11. Mineptah's 
 reign was not very long (about ten years) ; and supposing that the Exodus took 
 place not under him but in the period of weakness and anarchy which imme- 
 diately followed his reign, we cannot be sure that the J writer would have 
 known of this, or, knowing it, would have thought it nece.ssary to make the 
 point clear. In any case, however, it is obvious from the Hebrew narrative 
 that the Exodus followed at no long interval after the death of the Pharaoh of 
 the oppression. 
 
 " In view of the grouping in which the reference to Israel occurs, the alterna- 
 tive explanation which suggests itself— viz. that we have here Mineptah's 
 version of the Exodus, the disappearance of Israel in the waterless desert 
 being, from the Egyptian point of view, regarded as equivalent to their 
 extinction — may be dismissed as out of the question. » 
 
 G 2
 
 84 ISRAEL'S SETTLEMENT IN CANAAN 
 
 (or rather earlier than) the Biblical Exodus. Thus external evidence 
 tends to confirm a conclusion at which we have already arrived 
 through examination of the earliest Biblical traditions, viz. that the 
 Israelite tribes which sojourned in Egypt and escaped thence at the 
 Exodus were a part only and not the whole of Israel, while other 
 Israelite tribes occupied Canaan without a break from a much 
 earlier period. 
 
 Another point which for our purpose it is important to notice, is 
 the fact that the Old Testament traditions represent the migration 
 of Israel's ancestors from their early home in the east westward 
 into Canaan, not as a single movement completed in a short space 
 of time, but as a series of movements extending over a very con- 
 siderable period. Assuming (as we are bound to do) that these 
 early traditions deal in the main with the movements of tHhes 
 under the guise of individuals,^ the earliest of these tribal move- 
 ments is represented by the journey of Abraham (Abram) and his 
 nephew Lot from Harran into southern Canaan — a movement which 
 tradition regarded as responsible for the formation of the different 
 divisions of the ' Hebrew ' race, Jacob, Edom, Moab, and Ammon, 
 not to mention various Arabian tribal groups to whom Israel 
 acknowledged a relation more or less remote. Now the tradition 
 embodied in Gen. xiv makes Abraham contemporary with Ham- 
 murabi (Amraphel), the most celebrated king of the First Babylonian 
 dynasty, dating him therefore c. 2100 b. C. There are clear traces 
 of lunar worship in early Hebrew religion which centre primarily 
 round the Abraham-tradition, and undoubtedly connect Abraham 
 with Ur and Harran (the two important centres of lunar cultus) 
 
 * The explanation of individuals as personified tribes, and of their doings as 
 tribal movements, which is in fact forced upon us in regard to much that is 
 related in the patriarchal narratives (of., as typical instances, the accounts of 
 Abraham's descendants by his second wife Keturah, Gen. xxv. 1 ff., and of the 
 relations of Jacob's ' sons ' with Shechem, Gen. xxxiv — discussed on pp. 37 fif.), 
 must of course not be pressed to account for every detail in the stories ; since 
 some elements may possiblj^ be due to the admixture of reminiscences as to 
 actual individuals (tribal leaders, &c.), and a good deal in the setting of the 
 stories (especially of those which are most picturesque and lifelike) undoubtedly 
 belongs to the art of the story-teller. The literature which deals with this 
 subject is endless. It is sufficient here to refer to Skinner's Genesis (Intemat. 
 Crit. Comm.), pp. iii-xxxii, and to Kittel, Geschichte des Volkes Israel, ed. 2, i, 
 pp. 386-455, as offering markedly sane and judicious estimates of the character 
 of the Genesis-narratives. Guthe {Geschichte des Volkes Israel, pp. 1-6) lays 
 down canons for the interpretation of the nan-atives in their historical refer- 
 ence to tribal movements which are helpful so long as the qualifications above 
 suggested are borne in mind.
 
 CONCLUSIONS 85 
 
 and with the First dynasty period.^ Whether, therefore, we regard 
 Abraham as an historical clan-chieftain or as the ideal personifica- 
 tion of the clan itself, there is good ground for believing in the 
 historical truth of a Semitic clan-movement at this period from Ur 
 to Harran, and thence to southern Canaan (Beer-sheba). And since, 
 as we have seen,^ there were Habiru in Babylonia as early as the 
 time of Hammurabi and Rim- Sin, it is reasonable to conclude that 
 this migration was (as the Old Testament tradition represents it) 
 the beginning of the Hebrew westward movement — itself but a part 
 of the larger Aramaean movement which indisputably continued 
 during a period of many centuries. 
 
 A subsequent accession from the east seems to be represented by 
 the arrival of the Aramaean tribe Rebekah, who, by union with 
 Isaac, Abraham's ' son ', produces the two tribal groups, Esau-Edom 
 and Jacob. These for a while dwell together in southern Canaan, 
 until the hostile pressure of the former compels the latter to cross 
 the Jordan in the direction of his ancestral home, where, in course 
 of time, he unites with fresh Aramaean elements (Jacob's wives). 
 Ultimately the whole tribal body thus formed moves once more 
 towards Canaan, impelled as it appears by the westward pressure 
 of other Aramaeans (the pursuit of Laban), with whom eventually 
 a friendly treaty is formed, fixing the tribal boundary at or near 
 Mizpah in Gilead.^ When this Hebrew group, thus modified by 
 fresh accessions, once more enters Canaan, it no longer bears the 
 common name of Jacob, but is known as Israel.* 
 
 We may now observe that the tribal interpretation of early 
 Israelite traditions — taken in broad outline as they stand, and 
 without any shufiling or rearrangement to fit in with a preconceived 
 theory — ofiers us a chronological solution of most of the facts 
 derived from extra-Biblical evidence which seem to have a bearing 
 upon the history of Israel's ancestors. If the Hebrew immigration 
 into Canaan represented by Abraham really took place as early as 
 
 ^ Cf. Additional Note on ' Early identification of Yahweh with the Moon-god ' 
 in Burney, Judges, pp. 249 fF. 
 
 "- Cf. pp. 78 f. 
 
 ^ Cf., for the interpretation of early Biblical tradition embodied in this 
 paragraph, Steuernagel, Einwandenmg, §§ 6 ff. 
 
 * It is possible, as Steuernagel assumes (op. cit., p. 54), that the Leah and 
 Zilpah tribes may have been in Canaan earlier than the Bilhah and Jacob- 
 Rachel tribes, and, coming subsequently to be regarded as ' brothers ' of the 
 latter, were not unnaturally traced back to a common 'father'. Thus, owing 
 to priority of settlement, Leah comes to be regarded as the earlier wife, while 
 Rachel is the more closely united and better-loved wife.
 
 86 ISRAEL'S SETTLEMENT IN CANAAN 
 
 c. 2100 B.C., it is natural that a tribe called Jacob, descended 
 from Abraham, should have given its name to a site Jacob-el in 
 southern or central Canaan by 1479 E. c.^ And if the Jacob-tribe, 
 having again crossed the Jordan eastward, returned to Canaan at 
 a later period increased by fresh Aramaean accessions, this may well 
 have been in process of happening c. 1375 b. c, when, as we know 
 from the Amarna Letters, an Aramaean people called Habiru were 
 pressing into Canaan, and gradually gaining a footing on a semi- 
 nomadic basis (i. e. transitional between the nomadic and the 
 settled stage), much as Jacob-Israel and his 'sons' are represented 
 in Genesis as doing.^ The fact that Jacob, in makino- his westward 
 migration, is pressed by the Aramaean Laban agrees with the 
 presentation in the Amarna Letters of the Habiru-movement as of 
 a part with a widespread Aramaean movement as represented by 
 the SA-GAZ and the Sutii ; and the seizure of the district of 
 Shechem by the Habiru ^ may well be identij&ed with the events of 
 which we have an echo in Gen. xxxiv, xlviii. 21, 22. Indeed, as we 
 have already noticed,* the latter passage can hardly be explained 
 except on the assumption that the Shechera-district, which eventually 
 came in post-Exodus times to form part of the possession of the 
 Joseph-tribes, had been captured at an earlier period by another 
 section of Israel. Finally, the allusion to Israel as a people in 
 Canaan in the reign of Mineptah, c. J.223 b. c, agrees with the 
 Biblical tradition that Jacob on his second entry into Canaan 
 assumed the name of Israel. If it be merely a coincidence that 
 prior to the Habiru-invasion we have external evidence for Jacob 
 in Canaan, while subsequently to it we have like evidence for 
 Israel, it is certainly a remarkable one. 
 
 ^ The name Jacob {Ya"k6h), like Isaac {Yishdl-), Joseph, &c., is a verbal 
 form implying the elision of -el, ' God ', as subject of the verb. Cf. the personal 
 and place-name Yiphtah (Judges xi. Iff., Joshua xv. 43) with the place-name 
 YipJitaliel (Joshua xix. 14, 27), and the place-name Yahneh (2 Chron. xxvi. 6) 
 = Yabn^'el (Joshua xv. 11). Other examples of tribal names thus formed are 
 Yisra'el and Yihnu el. Other place-names so formed are Yizr^'el, Y^-abs^'el 
 (Neh. xi. 25 = Kah.fel, Joshua xv. 21, 2 Sam. xxiii. 20), YoJcth«'el (Joshua xv. 28, 
 2 Kings xiv. 7), Yirp'^'el (Joshua xviii. 27). On the transference of tribal names 
 to places or districts cf. Burchardt, Die altkanaanciischen Fretiidicorter, ii, p. 84. 
 The West Semitic names Yahhuh-el, Yakuh-el (without expression of V, which is 
 represented in the first example by^), Yakiihum ihypocoristic, exactly like 
 Jacob) occur in early Babylonian documents ; though we cannot be quite sure 
 of their equivalence to Jacob, since the syllable kuh may also stand for kitp, kub, 
 knp. Cf. Ranke as cited by Gressmann in ZATW. xxx (1910), p. 6. 
 
 * Cf. Kittel, Geschichte des Volkes Israel, ed. 2, i, p. 410. 
 
 ^ Cf. p. 67. ^ Cf. p. 43.
 
 CONCLUSIONS 87 
 
 A further question upon which we have not yet touched concerns 
 the period at which the Joseph-tribes broke off" from the rest of 
 Israel and migrated to Egypt. It has commonly been assumed 
 that this must have taken place during the Hyksos domination. 
 This conclusion is based partly upon the assumption that the entry 
 of Semitic tribes into Egypt would have been most likely to have 
 occurred under the Hyksos, who were themselves in all probability 
 Asiatic Semites ; partly upon the fact that the duration of Israel's 
 sojourn in Egypt, as given in Exod. xii. 40 P, viz. 430 years, if 
 reckoned backward from the probable date of the Exodus in the 
 reign of Mineptah — say, from 1220 B. c, gives 1650 B. c. as the date 
 of the entr}^, which falls well within the Hyksos-period, whether 
 we adopt the long or the short scheme of reckoning that period.^ 
 If, however, we are correct in identifying the immigration of 
 Israel and his ' sons ' into Canaan with the invasion of the Habiru 
 c. 1400 B. c, and if, again, it is the fact that the Old Testament 
 traditions preserve a substantially correct recollection of the order 
 of events (as we gathered from our preceding discussion), then it 
 appears that Joseph did not break off" from his brethren and go 
 down into Egypt until after the Habiru-invasion, i. e. perhaps two 
 centuries after the expulsion of the Hyksos by Ahmosi I, the 
 founder of the Eighteenth dynasty. It is remarkabla, indeed, that, 
 if the Pharaoh under whom Joseph is represented as rising to power 
 was a member of the Hyksos dynasty, the 'new king, who knew 
 not Joseph ' (Exod, i. 8) and instituted an era of oppressive measures 
 in order to check the increase of Israel, is found, not in Ahmosi I, 
 who expelled the hated Semitic invaders, but in Ra'messe II of the 
 Nineteenth dynasty, nearly 300 years later. The Biblical estimate 
 of 430 years for the duration of the sojourn in Egypt belongs to 
 the latest stratum of the narrative, and is clearly bound up with a 
 purely artificial system of calculation.^ A different tradition is 
 preserved in the LXX text of the passage, where the adelition of the 
 words Kal kv yfj Xavdav makes the 430 years include the whole 
 patriarchal period as well as the sojourn in Egypt ; and since on 
 the Biblical reckoning the former lasted 215 years, the latter is there- 
 fore reduced to a like period. This reckoning would give us 
 1435 B.C. as the date of the entry, i.e. during the reign of 
 Amenhotp II. 
 
 Increasing knowledge of the history of Egypt during the Empire 
 
 1 Cf. p. 60. 
 
 ^ It is based on the assumption of four generations of one hundred years 
 each. Cf. Driver, Exodus {Cambridge Bible), p. xlv, and notes on vi. 27, xii. 40.
 
 88 ISRAEL'S SETTLEMENT IN CANAAN 
 
 proves beyond a doubt that the pei'iod of the Eighteenth dynasty, 
 from the reign of Thutmosi III onwards, when Canaan was a 
 province of Egj^^pt and the intercourse between the two countries 
 was (as we learn from the Amarna Letters) close and constant, is 
 in all respects suited to the condition of affairs which, according to 
 the Genesis-tradition, brought about the entry of Israel's ancestors 
 into Egypt. The Egyptian inscription to which allusion has 
 already been made,^ in which Asiatic refugees crave, and receive, 
 admission into Egypt, dates, as we have noticed, from the close of 
 the Eighteenth dynasty ; and the terms in which the petition is 
 couched indicates that it had long been customary for the Pharaohs 
 to grant such admission. Under Amenhotp III, when the power 
 and luxury of the Empire were at their height, the development of 
 trade between Svria and Egypt left its mark upon the Egyptian 
 language through the introduction of a large Semitic vocabulary.^ 
 The Semitic population of Egypt must have been considerable, 
 partly drawn thither by ti-ade and partly as slaves, the captives of 
 Asiatic campaigns. ' As this host of foreigners intermarried with 
 the natives, the large infusion of strange blood made itself felt in 
 a new and composite type of face, if we may trust the artists of the 
 day.' ^ Such were Dudu and Yanhamu, two high officials bearing 
 Semitic names who are often mentioned in the Amarna Letters.* 
 Indeed, tlie position of the latter, who was high commissioner over 
 Yarimuta,^ a great corn-growing district, offers several points of 
 analogy to the position of Joseph as pictured in Genesis, and he has 
 been thought with some plausibility to be the historical figure round 
 whom the story of Joseph's rise to power in Egypt was constructed." 
 
 1 Cf. p. 46. 
 
 ■ Cf. BreastecL History of Efiypt, p. 337. ^ ibj^., p. 339. 
 
 * The name Dudu is evidently the same as the Biblical Dodo which occurs in 
 Judges X. 1, 2 Sam. xxiii. 9 K^ri = 1 Chion. xi. 12, 2 Sam. xxiii. 14 = 1 Chion. 
 xi. 26 : cf. Barney, Judges, p. 291. Yanhamu may stand for DV^^ which is 
 known as a Sabaean proper name : cf. Weber in Knudtzon, p. 1171. 
 
 ' The site of this district is disputed. One view places it in the Delta, while 
 another would find it on the Syrian coast : cf. Burney, Judges, p. cxiii, foot-note. 
 Whether, however, Yarimuta lay within the actual borders of Ef,rypt or not, the 
 fact that Yanhamu was constantly in Egypt and in close touch with the 
 Pharaoh as a liiph official of the court remains undoubted : cf. the conspectus 
 of allusions to him given by Weber in Knudtzon, pp. 1169 ff. 
 
 * Cf. J. Marquart, Chronolorjische JJntersiichungen [Fhilologus : Zeitschriff fur 
 das class. Alferthum : SitppJimenthand vii. 1899), pp. 677-80; Winclder, 
 Abraham als Bahylonier, Joseph als Agypter (1903), p. 31 ; Cheyne in Encyc. 
 Bihh 2593 ; Jeremias, The Old Testament in the Light of the Ancient East, ii,
 
 CONCLUSIONS 89 
 
 If, then, we may assume that the entry of the Joseph-tribes into 
 Egypt took place during the flourishing period of the Empire, it is 
 likely that the change of policy under Ra'messe II, which led him 
 to take measures to oppress and to check the increase of the 
 Hebrews, may have been dictated by the fact that the loss of 
 Egypt's hold upon her Asiatic empire, which resulted from the 
 weakness of Ahnaton and his successors, tended to make the 
 presence of a considerable body of Semitic aliens upon the north- 
 east border of Egypt a menace to the safety of the state. ^ 
 
 While, however, our theory places the "entry of the Joseph- tribe 
 into Egypt considerably later than the Hyksos-period, this does not 
 forbid the view that earlier ancestors of Israel may have been in 
 Egypt with the Hyksos. If Abraham represents a Hebrew migra- 
 tion to Canaan some centuries before the Hyksos-invasion of Egypt, 
 and if this invasion was a southward movement of the people of 
 Amurru, it seems not at all unlikely that some of Israel's ancestors, 
 who (as tradition informs us) occupied southern Canaan, may have 
 been implicated in it. The tradition of Gen. xii. 10-20 J, which 
 brings Abraham and his wife and followers to Egypt in time of 
 famine, looks not unlike an echo of the Hyksos-period ; and the way 
 in which the patriarch is represented as escorted out of the land 
 may not impossibly amount to the placing of the best interpreta- 
 tion upon a dismissal which may really have been an expulsion — 
 possibly based on a vague recollection of the actual expulsion of the 
 Hyksos by Ahmosi I. If this is so, it is not impossible that the 
 Hyksos-chieftain Jacob-el may have been a representative of the 
 Jacob-tribe. 
 
 Thus the only extra-Biblical allusion to Israel's ancestors for 
 which, on our interpretation of the Biblical tradition, we fail to 
 lind an explanation, is the supposed occurrence of Joseph-el as a 
 place-name in Canaan, c. 1479 b, c. ; since, on our theory, the 
 Joseph-tribe can scarcely have been in Canaan at this date. The 
 
 pp. 72 ff. ; Weber in Knudtzon, p. 1171. Cheyne has made the wonderfully 
 clever suggestion that in Gen. xii. 43 the obscure expression Abrek which was 
 proclaimed before Joseph on his rise to power, combined with the Infinitive 
 Absolute form which immediately follows ("inN pn:i l"i2K), is a corruption of 
 pnN313 n^n ' Friend of Hu-en-aton ' (a variant method of vocalizing the name 
 Ahnaton) : cf. Orientalistische Liieraturzeitimg, April, 1900; Encyc. Bill. 2593. 
 The objection to this is that the Egyptian H would naturally be represented in 
 Hebrew by n and not by 3 : cf. W. M. Miiller, Orientalistische Literaturzeitung, 
 October, 1900. 
 ^ Cf. Spiegelberg, Der Attfcnthalt Israels in Aegypten (1904), pp. 35 ff.
 
 90 ISRAEL'S SETTLEMENT IN CANAAN 
 
 interpretation of Y-s-'p-d-ra as Joseph-el is, however (as we have 
 noticed ^), of very doubtful validity. 
 
 The view which makes Ra'messe II the Pharaoh of the oppression^ 
 and Mineptah, or one of his immediate successors, the Pharaoh of 
 the Exodus, though favoured by the majority of scholars, is not 
 universally accepted. The fact is certainly remarkable that, if we 
 take the Biblical scheme of computation as it stands, and adding 
 480 years to 967 b. c. (which is fixed with approximate certainty 
 for the fourth year of Solomon), in accordance with the statement 
 of 1 Kings vi. 1 R^, obtain 1447 b. c. (in the reign of Amenhotp II) 
 as the date of the Exodus ; then add 430 years for Israel's residence 
 in Egypt (cf. Exod. xii. 40 P), and obtain 1877 b. c. (in the Hyksos- 
 period according to Petrie's longer scheme of chronology, though 
 earlier according to Breasted and Hall) for the entrj'- into Egypt ; 
 then add 215 years for the Patriarchal period (according to 
 Gen. xii. 4 b, xxi. 5, xxv. 26 b, xlvii. 9 a, all P),^ and obtain 
 2092 B. c. for Abraham's departure from Harran, this last date falls 
 within the reign of Hammurabi (c. 2123-2081 b. c.) in accordance 
 with the tradition of Gen. xiv. Thus Prof. Hommel ^ adopts the 
 reign of Amenhotp II for the Exodus. 
 
 It should not, however, escape our notice that the one fact which 
 makes this computation remarkable is the approximate correctness 
 of the exterior dates, viz. that 1,125 years appear accurately to 
 represent the period from a date in Hammurabi's reign to a date in 
 Solomon's reign. This is probably not the result of accident, but 
 may well be due to the fact that a Jewish chronologist living in 
 Babylon during the exile may easily have obtained from Baby- 
 lonian sources the figure which represented the period from 
 Hammurabi to his own day.^ This, however, argues nothing for 
 the correctness of the sectional periods within the external limits. 
 The back-reckoning to Solomon is of course based upon the 
 
 » Cf. p. 61, n. 4. 
 
 ^ According to this scheme Abraham is seventy-five on his departure from 
 Harran, and one hundred at the birth of Isaac; Isaac is sixty at the biiih of 
 Jacob, and Jacob is one hundred and thirty when he enters Egypt with his 
 sons. 
 
 ^ Expository Times, x {1899~i, pp. 210 if. Hommel assigns in each case a date 
 nine years later than those given above. Orr, Problem of the Old Testament 
 (1908), pp. 422-4, adopts the conclusions of Hommel. 
 
 * The care and accuracy with which the Babylonians preserved their chrono- 
 logical data, even back to the earliest period of their history, are familiar 
 facts. Cf. Rogers, History of Bahylonia and Assyria, 6tb ed., i, pp. 470 flf.
 
 CONCLUSIONS 91 
 
 (approximately correct ^) chronology of Kings ; but the Babylonians 
 could supply no information as to the date of the Exodus, or of 
 Israel's entry into Egypt, or of the lives of the patriarchs. As we 
 noticed in the first lecture,^ the 480 years assigned in 1 Kings vi. 1 
 as the period from the Exodus to the fourth year of Solomon is a 
 purely artificial computation, based on the theory of twelve genera- 
 tions of forty years each, and worked out within the period by the 
 use of suspiciously recurrent periods of forty years. If, however, 
 we cannot find even an approximately historical basis for the 
 Biblical chronology of this period, why should we pin our faith to 
 the correctness of the earlier periods given for Israel's sojourn in 
 Egypt (based, as we have already noticed,^ on the assumption of 
 four generations of one hundred years each !), and for the lives of 
 the patriarchs'? The reign of Amenhotp II, when Egypt's hold 
 upon her Asiatic empire was at its strongest immediately after the 
 victorious reign of Thutmosi III, may well be thought to be the 
 least probable period for the Exodus and settlement in Canaan by 
 force of arms. 
 
 Another view as to the date of the Exodus is represented by 
 Mr. Hall,* who attempts to revive the theory of Josephus,^ by con- 
 necting the Exodus with the expulsion of the Hyksos ; and further 
 supposes that the aggressions of the Habiru, as we read of them in 
 the Amarna Letters, are identical with the invasion of Canaan by 
 the Israelites under the leadership of Joshua. This theory is obliged 
 to do great violence to the Biblical tradition ; for not only are the 
 circumstances of Ahmosi's expulsion of the Hyksos widely different 
 from the Biblical account of the Exodus, but in order to dispose of 
 the inference (based on Exod. i. 11) that Ra'messe II was the 
 Pharaoh of the oppression, the names Pithom and Ra'amses have 
 to be explained as ' the interpretations of a scribe who knew their 
 names as those of Egyptian cities which existed in his time in and 
 near the land of Goshen ',^ and, to bridge the interval between 
 Ahmosi I and Amenhotp III, the ' forty ' years in the wilderness 
 (probably intended to represent the length of a generation ^) have 
 to be expanded to nearly two hundred years,^ and thus the possibility 
 of a real historical connexion between Joshua and Moses is 
 
 ^ Cf. p. 3, foot-note. ^ Cf. p. 4. 
 
 » Cf. p. 87. 
 
 * Ancient History of the Near East, pp. 403 ft'. 
 
 ^ Contra Apionem, i.*14. ® Op. cit., p. 405. 
 
 '' Cf. Num. xiv. 26-35 JEP, xxxii. 13 P, Deut. ii. 14, and the remarks on p. ^. 
 
 « Op. cit., p. 408.
 
 £2 ISRAEL'S SETTLEMENT IN CANAAN 
 
 necessarily excluded. On the identification of Joshua's conquests 
 with the Habiru-invasion we cannot, as this writer confesses/ 
 identify any ol the persons mentioned in the one source with those 
 who are mentioned in the other.^ The question whether the 
 character of the Hal jiru-aggressions closely resembles the Biblical 
 narrative of Israel's doings as depicted in the Book of Joshua must 
 be largely a matter of individual opinion. In my ow^n view the 
 
 ^ Op. cit., p. 410. 
 
 - Ovr {The Problem of the Old Testament, pp. 423 f.) likewise holds that the 
 invasion of the Habiru ' synchronises very closely with the conquest of Canaan 
 by the Israelites', and finds in this 'a coincidence of much importance '. It is 
 curious that this writer, whose book is a defence of the historical character of 
 the Old Testament against the attacks of criticism (cf. especially ch. iii), and 
 who rightly (in the opinion of the present writer) objects to the sweeping state- 
 ment of Kuenen that ' the description of the Exodus from Egypt, the wandering 
 in the desert, and partition of Canaan ... to put it in a word, are utterly iinhis- 
 torical ' (cf. p. 57, referring to Kuenen, Hexateiich, p. 42), should fail to observe 
 that the identification of the Habiru-invasion with that of Israel under Joshua 
 at once cuts at the roots of the historical character of the old narratives in the 
 Book of Joshua. Comparison of the names of the Canaanite kings in Joshua 
 and the Amama Letters, where we have information from both sources, yields 
 the following result : 
 
 Bool- of Joshua. Amama Letters. 
 
 Jerusalem . . Adoni-zedek (x. 3) ARAD-Hiba (Knudtzon, nos. 285ff.). 
 
 ^ , . , -,,.,,„ (Yabni-el (Knudtzon, no. 328). 
 
 Lachish . . . Japhia(x.3) jzimrida (Knudtzon, no. 329). 
 
 Gazer .... Horam (x. 33) Yapahi (Knudtzon, nos. 297 ff.). 
 
 Hazor. . . . Jabin (xi. 1) Abdi-Tirsi (Knudtzon, no. 228). 
 
 Here, since the Amarna names, as derived from actual contemporary letters, 
 must necessarily be correct, the Biblical names, if referred to identically the 
 same period are ipso facto declared to be false ; and if this is the case with every 
 name which can be tested, what ground have we for holding that any names, 
 or indeed any facts, mentioned in the Biblical account of the conquest of 
 Canaan are of the slightest historical value ? The only supposed historical 
 (/ain arising from identification of the Habim-invasion with the conquests of 
 Joshua, is that it fits in well enough with the late Biblical scheme of chronology 
 which we have already discussed (p. 90) ; yet, while we can attach a real 
 historical value to an ancient narrative in which the main outline (i.e. as 
 concerns names, scenes, and actions) appears to be approximately true to fact, 
 even though chronological data are lacking (as in J and E upon the view which 
 we maintain), it is ditficult to see what importance can be attached to the 
 maintenance of a chronological scheme which (on the test of external evidence i 
 at once wrecks the historical character of the narratives to which it is applied. 
 To do Dr. Orr justice, it is probable that he did not realize the further implica- 
 tions of his argument as they are here pointed out ; yet, if this is so, what is 
 the value of an argument which, basing itself upon the supposed identity of two 
 sets of circumstances as pictured in Biblical and extra-Bfblical sources, neglects 
 so obvious a precaution as the comparison of the names of some of the principal 
 actors ?
 
 CONCLUSIONS 93 
 
 position of the Habiru and SA-GAZ in Canaan is more nearly 
 analogous to that of the floating, semi-nomadic population which 
 has at all times formed a feature of Palestine — a population living 
 at peace with the settled inhabitants of cities and villages when the 
 country is under a strong government, though even then ever ready 
 to seize the opportunity for blackmail and petty aggression; but a 
 really dangerous element when affairs are unsettled and the govern- 
 ment is weak or non-existent, and without scruple as regards selling 
 their services for warfare and intrigue to the highest bidder. Such 
 a relation towards the Canaanites — normally peaceful, but some- 
 times aggressive — appears more nearly to correspond to the position 
 of Israel in Canaan in patriarchal times (cf ., for the aggressive side, 
 Gen. xxxiv) than to the invasion of the Joseph-tribes under Joshua 
 which, when we have made all allowance for the exaggerations of 
 R^, was still a definitely organized campaign of conquest. In any 
 case, since, as we have seeu,^ it is impossible to separate the Habiru 
 from the SA-GAZ, or to deny that the former were, at least to a 
 large extent, identical with the latter, the Habiru-invasion must 
 have extended over a far wider (more northerly) area than did 
 Israel's career of conquest even as interpreted by the later editors 
 of the old narratives in the Book of Joshua, 
 
 It is true that, according to Mr. Hall's theory of the date of the 
 Exodus, as also according to that of Prof. Hommel, we gain a far 
 longer period for the course of events from the Exodus to the 
 fourth year of Solomon, for which, as we have seen, the late author 
 of 1 Kings vi. 1 assigns 480 years, but which, if we place the Exodus 
 under Mineptah, cannot really have covered much more than 
 250 years.- Considering, however, the fact that the Judges were 
 tribal and local leaders merely, some of whom may have been con- 
 temporaneous, there exists no valid reason why a longer period than 
 250 years should be postulated. On the other hand, supposing that 
 we identify Joshua's conquest of Canaan with the Habiru-invasion, 
 we are faced by the very real difficulty that the Syrian campaigns 
 of Sety I (which dealt primarily with the Habiru-aggressions^), 
 Ra'messe II, and Mineptah (who actually defeated Israel in Canaan ^), 
 all fall within the period of the Judges ; yet, while much is told us 
 in the Book of Judges of the aggressions of comparatively petty 
 antagonists, not a word is said as to any collision with the great 
 power of Egypt. This omission, which, on the theory of the Exodus 
 
 ^ Cf. pp. 69 ff. ^ Cf. Burnev, Judges, Introd., p. liii. 
 
 ^ Cf. p. 81. * Cf. p. 82. '
 
 94 ISRAEL'S SETTLEMENT IN CANAAN 
 
 which we adopt, is in agreement with fact, must surely (in view of 
 relations with Egypt in time past implied by the narrative of the 
 oppression and escape from bondage) be deemed very strange if we 
 are to throw Israel's occupation of Canaan under Joshua back to 
 the period of the Amarna Letters,
 
 TABLE OF DATES 
 
 The following table gives the approximate dates of fixed points 
 in connexion with Israel's early tribal movements, so far as we have 
 been able to determine them in the foregoing discussion : 
 
 Date B. C. 
 
 Earliest mipration of Israel's ancestors from Harran to Canaan 
 
 about the time of Hammurabi (cf. p. 84) . . . . c. 2100 
 
 Some of these ancestors possibly in Egypt with the Hyksos (cf. 
 
 p. 89) before 1580 
 
 Jacob-tribes in Canaan : place-name Jacob-el mentioned by 
 
 Thutmosi III (cf. p. 61) c. 1479 
 
 '^^mWw (Hebrews ??) in Canaan (cf. p. 62) .... „ 
 
 Flow of SA-GAZ-Habiru (Aramaeans, including Hebrews) west- 
 ward and south-westward into Syria and Canaan in full 
 progress (cf. pp. 66fF. ) : Shechem held by Habiru (cf. p. 67, 
 and Gen. xxxiv, xlviii. 22): Joseph-tribes in Egypt . . c. 1411-135S 
 
 Sety I defeats the §asu (i. e. SA-GAZ-Habiru) in Canaan at the 
 beginning of his reign, and conquers a district called 
 Asher in western Galilee (cf. p. 82). Sety reigned . . c. 131-3-1292 
 
 'Apuriu (Hebrews ??) mentioned as foreigners doing manual 
 
 work in Egypt (cf. p. 62) c. 1292-1161 
 
 Oppression of Joseph-tribes in Egypt by Ra'messe II (cf. p. 83), 
 
 who reigned c. 1292-1225 
 
 Exodus of Joseph-tribes (and possibly other elements of Israel, 
 e.g. Simeon and Levi : cf. pp. 46 f.) under Mineptah (or a 
 little later : cf. p. 83, n. 2). Mineptah reigned . . . c. 1225-121.5 
 
 Mineptah defeats ' Israel ' (i. e. some part of the tribes who 
 were not in Egypt with the Joseph-tribes) in Canaan 
 (cf. p. 82) c. 1222 
 
 Invasion of Canaan by the Joseph-tribes under Joshua, soon after 1200.
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 Aaron, 45, 48, 49 ; genealogy of suc- 
 cessors of, 4. 
 
 Abd-Asirta, 66, 74, 76. 
 
 Abdi-Tirsi, 92. 
 
 Abel, L., 63. 
 
 Abi'ezer, 32. 
 
 Abimelech, 43. 
 
 Abraham, 76, 79. 84 ff., 89, 90. 
 
 Accho, 15, 22, 53. 
 
 Achor, valley of, 11. 
 
 Achshaph, 14, 54. 
 
 Adad-nirari I. 75. 
 
 Adad-nirari IV, 3. 
 
 Adoni-Bezek, Adoni-Zedek, 17, 92. 
 
 Adullam, 52. 
 
 Afka, 15. 
 
 'Aglan, Hirbet, 12. 
 
 Ahab, 3. ^ 
 
 Ahetaton, 64. 
 
 Aiilamu, 75, 80. 
 
 Ahmosi I, 60, 61, 87, 89, 91. 
 
 Ahnaton, 64, 66, 75, 81,89. 
 
 ahii, 38 f. 
 
 Ai, 11,13,15, 19,34, 35. 
 
 Aijalon, 24, 52 ; vale of, 13, 24, 34. 
 
 'Ain-sems, 23. 
 
 'Akir, 12, 18. 
 
 Alienby, General, 12. 
 
 Amalekites, 18. 
 
 Amenhotp II, 63, 87, 90, 91. 
 
 Amenhotp 111, 63, 64, 65, 66, 88, 91. 
 
 Amenhotp IV, 63, 64. See also 
 ' Ahnaton '. 
 
 Ammiditana, 78. 
 
 Ammon, 84. 
 
 Amorites, 11 f., 14, 16, 17, 22, 29, 34, 
 43, 66. 
 
 Amraphel, 84. 
 
 Amurru, 60, 66, 75, 76, 89. 
 
 Anakites, 18, 30, 31. 
 
 Anath-el, 60. 
 
 Animal-names of Israelite-tribes, 57. 
 
 Anum-pi-Sin, 79. 
 
 Aphek, 15. 
 
 'Apuriu, 'Apriu, 62, 95. 
 
 Arabah, 14. 
 
 Arad. 28, 29, 37. 
 
 ARAD-Hiba,66, 67,73, 74, 78, 79,80,92. 
 
 Aramaeans, 21, 55, 75 S., 78, 85, 86, 95. 
 
 Aram-nabaraim, 77. 
 
 Archaeology, relation of, to Biblical 
 criticism, 1 f. 
 
 Arik-den-ili, 75. 
 
 Ark ofYahweh, 48. 
 
 ArtasHumara. 65. 
 
 Artatama, 63, 65. 
 
 Avzawa, sons of, 80. 
 
 Asher, 22, 25, 53, 54, 55, 56, 58, 82, 83. 
 
 Asherah, 55 f. 
 
 Ashkelon, 'Askalan, 18, 67, 82. 
 
 Assyria, 63, 75. 
 
 Assyrian Annals, 2 f., 9. 
 
 Astral character of some tribal names, 
 
 55 f 
 Asur-dan IV. 3. 
 Asur-nirari IV, 3. 
 Asur-uballit, 75. 
 Atirat, 55 f. 
 Azekah, 12. 
 Aziru, 66, 70, 74. 
 
 Babylon, Babylonia, 61, 63, 90. 
 
 Baethgen, F., 55. 
 
 Baker, Sir S. W., 43. 
 
 Ball, C. J., 38, 40, 50, 53, 55, 71, 74. 
 
 Banti-sinni, 76. 
 
 Barak, 4, 5, 34, 53 f. 
 
 Barton, G. A., 38, 71. 
 
 Bashan, 32. 
 
 Beeroth, 11. 
 
 Beer-sheba, 13, 23, 85. 
 
 Belit-DR-MAG-MES, 73. 
 
 B'^ne-Hamor, 37, 43, 44. 
 
 Benhadad II, 3. 
 
 Benhadad III, 3. 
 
 Benjamin, 17 f., 19, 33, 39, 41, 52. 
 
 Besan, 19. 
 
 Beth-anath, 22, 23. 
 
 Bethel, 11, 19, 35,49. 
 
 Beth-horon, 12, 24, 34. 
 
 Beth-shean, 19. 
 
 Beth-shemesh, 22, 23, 56. 
 
 Bethuel, 77. 
 
 Betin, 11, 19. 
 
 Bet-ur, 12. 
 
 Bezold, C, 63. 
 
 bik'd, 14. 
 
 Bi'lhah, 50 f., 57; Bilhah-tribes, 23, 
 
 51. 57, 85. 
 el-Birah, 11. 
 Biridiya, 73, 78. 
 Bir-idri, 3. 
 Bliss, F. J., 12.
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 9r 
 
 Boohim, 35. 
 
 Boghaz Keui, documents from, 65, 70, 
 73, 76. 
 
 Bohan, 51. 
 
 Bohl, F., 63, 81. 
 
 Breasted, J. H., 19, 46, 47, 59, 60, 61, 
 62, 81, 82, 88, 90. 
 
 Brooke, A. E., 18, 36. 
 
 Briinnow, R. E.. 38, 39, 71. 
 
 Budde, K., 17,20, 35 f. 
 
 Budge, E. A. W., 63, 75. 
 
 Buhl, F., 14, 16, 24. 
 
 el-Buka, 14. 
 
 Bull-worship of the Northern King- 
 dom, 49. 
 
 Burchardt, M., 62, 86. 
 
 Burney, C. F., 5, 10, 11, 13, 14, 17,23, 
 
 33, 36, 54, 55, 56, 57, 59, 67, 71, 77, 
 78, 80, 85, 88, 93. 
 
 Caleb, 14, 18,24, 30, 31,57. 
 
 Canaan, invasion of, by tribes of Israel 
 under Joshua, lift'., 35 f., 43, 44, 52, 
 53, 68. 91 ft'., 95. 
 
 Canaanites. 14. 16, 19, 20, 2?, 24. 28, 
 29, 32, 36, 37, 53. 
 
 Canaanite ' glosses' in Amarna Letters, 
 68. 
 
 Canon, Old Testament, 6. 
 
 Carchemish, 61, 75, 79. 
 
 Carmel, mount, 25, 53. 
 
 Carpenter, J. Estlin, 16, 22, 31. 
 
 Chabas, F. J., 62. 
 
 Cheyne, T. K., 12, 88, 89. 
 
 Chicken, R. T., 42. 
 
 Chinneroth, 14. 
 
 Chronology of period of Israel's set- 
 tlement contrasted with that of 
 Monarchy-period, 2 ff. 
 
 Le Clerc, J., 40. 
 
 Coele-Syria, 16. 
 
 Conder, C. R., 13. 
 
 Cook, Stanley A., 14, 30. 
 
 Coryndon, Major R. T., 42. 
 
 Dagan-takala, 72, 74. 
 
 Damascus, 3. 
 
 Dan, 22, 23, 24, 39, 41, 49, 51, 54, 56, 
 
 57. 
 ddrdm, 24. 
 Daroma, 24. 
 David, 4, 5, 18, 21, 26, 27, 30, 32 ; 
 
 Lament of, over Saul and Jonathan, 
 
 34, 35. 
 Debir, 13, 18. 
 
 Deborah, 34, 53; Song of, 32, 33 f., 
 
 51, 54. 
 Delitzsch, Friedrich, 38, 40, 57, 79. 
 Dhorme, P., 66, 69, 72, 74, 81. 
 de Dieu, L., 40. 
 Dillmann, A., 39, 40. 
 
 B. 
 
 Dinah, 37. 
 
 Dor, 19. 
 
 Doughty, C M., 37. 
 
 Driver, S. R , 13, 45, 49, 53, 62, 83. 87. 
 
 Dudu, 88. 
 
 E document in Joshua, 12, 13, 16 ; in 
 Pentateuch, 29, 31, 43. 
 
 Ea, 38, 39. 
 
 Ebers, G., 62. 
 
 Edom, Edomites, 28, 30, 84, 85. 
 
 Eglon, 11, 13. 
 
 Egypt, domination of, by Hyksos, 59 ; 
 expulsion of Hyksos from, 60 ; in- 
 vasion and conquest of Canaan and 
 Syria by kings of Eighteenth 
 dynasty of, 61 ff. ; correspondence 
 discovered at Tell el-Amarna in, 63 ; 
 intrigues of the Hittites against, 
 64 f., 81 ; relations of the Amorites 
 Abd-Asirta and Aziru with, 66 ; 
 Habiru and SA-GAZ undermine 
 authority of, in Canaan and Syria, 
 66 ft'. ; restoration of Asiatic empire 
 by kings of Nineteenth dynasty of, 
 81 f. ; entry of Israelite tribes into, 
 87 ff. ; Elxodus of Israelites from. 
 See ' Exodus '. 
 
 Egyptian inscriptions illustrating ad- 
 mission of Israelite tribes into 
 Egypt, 46, 88. 
 
 Egyptian names compounded with 
 mosi, 47. 
 
 Ehud, 4, 5. 
 
 Ekron, 12, 15, 18. 
 
 Elah, vale of, 12. 
 
 Elam, Elamites, 77, 78. 
 
 Eleutheropolis, 24. 
 
 Eli, 4, 5. 
 
 Elon, 52. 
 
 'emek, 19. 
 
 Ephraim, 19, 20, 33 ; HUl-country of, 
 51 f. 
 
 Eriha, 11. 
 
 Esau, 85. 
 
 Esdraelon, plain of, 19, 20, 22, 25, 52. 
 
 Eshtemoa, 24. 
 
 Eusebius, 24, 57- 
 
 Exodus, the, 4, 36, 47, 48, 55, 62, 68, 
 83 ; date of, 83, 90 ft'., 95 ; tradition 
 ignoring, 52. 
 
 Figulla, H. H., 65. 75, 76. 
 Flood-legend, Babylonian, 38. 
 fuwivah, 57. 
 
 Gad, 11, 22, 33, 51, 55 f., 58. 
 Galilee, 25, 83 ; sea of, 24. 
 Gardiner, Alan H., 47. 
 Gaza, Gazzeh, 18. 
 Gebalites, 16.
 
 98 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 Geiger, A., 50. 
 
 GHil hag-g(jyim, hag-gulil, 25. 
 
 Genesis, patriarchal legends of, 36. 
 
 (jer, 44. 
 
 Geshurites. 21. 22. 
 
 Gezer. 13, 20. 24, 67, 82, 92. 
 
 el-6ib, 11. 
 
 Gibeon, 11, 12, 13. 
 
 Gideon, 4, 5. 
 
 Gilead, 21. 82, 38, 50, 51, 85. 
 
 Gilgal, 12, 19. 27. 
 
 GilgaineS, epic of, 57. 
 
 Gilu-Hipa. 65, 67. 
 
 Goshen, 91. 
 
 Gray, G. B., 22. 31, 57. 
 
 Gressmann, H.. 86. 
 
 Griffith, F. LI., 47, 59. 
 
 Gunkel. H . 41. 
 
 Guthe, H., 84. 
 
 Habiru, identity of, 66 ff. ; identifica- 
 ^ tion of, with Hebrews, 68, 76 f., 
 78 f., 86; philological equivalence 
 of name, with Ibhrt, 68 f. ; con- 
 nexion of, with SA-GAZ, 69 ff. ; 
 ' Habiru-gods ', 70, 72 ; addition of 
 KI to name, 73, 81 ; aggressions of, 
 in Canaan, 66 f., 73, 74, 76, 79 f., 
 81, 86. 91, 92 f., 95; connexion of, 
 with Sutu, 74 f. ; Aramaean nomads, 
 
 76 ; early mention of, in Babylonia, 
 
 77 ff. ; called §asu by the Egyptians, 
 81 ; proposed identification of, with 
 Kassites, 77 f. ; proposed identifica- 
 tion of, with Hittites, 79 ff. ; litera- 
 ture dealing with, 61. 
 
 Hadirah, Gebel, 14. 
 
 Haievy, J., 78. 
 
 Hall, H. R., 60, 61,75, 90, 91ff. 
 
 Hamath, entering in of, 3. 31. 
 
 Hammurabi, 78, 79, 84. 85, 90, 95. 
 
 flandmaid-tribes, 54 ff. See also 
 
 under ' Bilhah ' and ' Zilpah '. 
 Hapir, 77. 
 Harbisihu, 77. 
 IJaremheb, 46. 
 
 Harford-Battersby, G., 16, 22, 31. 
 Har-heres. 24. 
 Harran, 84. 85, 90, 95. 
 flarn. 81, 82. 
 H^itti, 65. 
 Hattusili 1, 64. 
 flattusili II, 67. 75, 82. 
 Hayyan, Hirbet, 11. 
 Hazael, S. 
 
 hazan{n]u, hazianu, 67. 
 Hazor. 14, 15, 25, 53 f., 92 
 Hebrews. See under ' 'Apuriu ', and 
 
 'Habii'u '. 
 Hebron. 11, 13, 18, 31, 81. 
 hemn, 18, 28. 
 
 Hermon, 14. 
 
 Heyes, H. J., 62. 
 
 Hiba, Hipa, 66 f. 
 
 flill-country, 13, 18, 19,20, 23,24,25, 
 29, 31. .34. 37, 43, 49, 50, 51, 54. 
 
 Hilprecht, H. V., 78. 
 
 Historical Books of the Old Testa- 
 ment, composite character of, 6 ff. ; 
 religious purpose of, 6 ; method 
 adopted by editors of, 7 f. 
 
 Hittites. 14. 60, 61, 64 ff., 79, 81 f. 
 
 Hitzig, F., 57. 
 
 Hivvites, 14. 
 
 Hobab, 18. 
 
 Hogg, H. W., 50. 52. 57. 
 
 Hommel, F., 45, 56. 77, 90. 
 
 Horam, 20, 92. 
 
 Hormah, 18, 28, 29. 
 
 Huleh, lake, 14. 
 
 Hyan, 59. 
 
 Hyenas, 38 ff. 
 
 Hyksos, 59 f., 87, 89, 91. 
 
 Ibleam. 19. 
 
 Ibn Ezra, 40. 
 
 I'ezer, 32. 
 
 Iksaf. Hirbet, 14. 
 
 Israel, conception of tribes as an 
 organic unity in early times, 5, 28, 
 80 ; tribes personified as individuals, 
 37. 84 ; mentioned by Mineptah, 82, 
 83. 86. 95. 
 
 Issachar, 25, 39, 41, 50, 51 ff. 
 
 Itakama, 65. 
 
 J document, in Joshua, 12, 13, 20, 21, 
 
 32, 34 ; in Judges, 16-24, 26, 27, 31 ; 
 
 in Pentateuch. 21, 28, 29. 
 .Jabbok. 21. .34. 
 Jabin. 14. 15. 25, 53 f.. 92. 
 Jacob. .37. 43, 50, 51, 52, 54, 77, 85, 86, 
 
 89, 95. 
 Jacob-el (personal name), 60, 89 ; 
 
 (place-name), 61, 86, 95. 
 Jair, 21, 34. 
 Japhia, 92. 
 Jarmuth, 11. 
 Jashar, Book of, 34 f. 
 Jastrow, M.. 38. 
 Jebusites, 14, 17 f., 24. 
 Jehoahaz, 3. 
 Jehoash, 3. 
 Jehoram, 3. 
 Jehu, 3. 
 Jensen, P, 38. 
 Jephthah, 5. 
 Jerahmeelites, 30, 46. 
 Jeremias, A., 38. 88. 
 Jericho, 11, 15, 27, 34. 
 Jeroboam I, 49. 
 Jeroboam II, 3.
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 99 
 
 Jerome, 24. 
 
 Jerusalem, 11, 14, 17 f., 24, 66. 74, 92. 
 
 Johns, C. H. W., 77. 
 
 Joseph, 43, 87, 88 ; Joseph- tribes, 19, 
 
 20 f., 24, 25, 35, 43, 44, 47, 48, 57, 
 
 93, 95 ; migration to Egypt, 87 ff. 
 Joseph-el?, 61, 89. 
 Josephus, 57, 59, 91, 
 Joshua, 5, 11, 13, 14, 15,16, 19, 20,21, 
 
 26, 27, 28, 29, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 43, 
 
 52, 53, 83, 91, 92, 95. 
 Judah. 13, 17, 18, 24, 28, 29, 30, 31 f., 
 
 35, 37, 39, 40.46, 48f., 52. 
 Judges, Book of, 4, 5. 
 Judges, period of the, 93. 
 
 Kadasman-Enlil II, 75. 76. 
 
 Kadasman-Harbe I, 75. 
 
 Kadesh-Barnea, 13, 28, 29, 31, 47, 48. 
 
 Kadesh on the Orontes, 65. 
 
 Kalumu, inscription of, 59. 
 
 Kara-indas I, 79. 
 
 Kardunias, 75, 76, 79. 
 
 Karkar, battle of, 3. 
 
 KasSites, 60, 77 ff. 
 
 Kefirah, 11. 
 
 Kenath, 22. 
 
 Kenites, 18, 24, 29, 30, 46. 
 
 Kenizzites, 18, 24, 57. 
 
 King, L. W., 75, 76, 79. 
 
 Kings, chronology of Books of, 3. 
 
 Kinza, Kidsa, 65, 
 
 Kiriath-jearim, 11. 
 
 Kiriath-?epher, 13, 18. 
 
 Kitron, 22. 
 
 Kittel, R., 84. 
 
 Knudtzon, J. A., 63, 66, 67, 68, 69, 72, 
 
 74, 75, 78, 79, 80, 81. 
 Kudur-Mabuk, 78. 
 Kudurra, 77. 
 Kuenen, A., 92. 
 Kuryet el-"Enab, 11. 
 Kugsar, 64. 
 Kutu, 75. 
 
 Laban, 77, 85, 86. 
 
 Labaja, 73 ; sons of, 67, 73, 78, 80. 
 
 Lachish, 11, 12, 13. 67, 92. 
 
 Lagarde, P. de, 24, 57. 
 
 Lagrange, M. J., 78. 
 
 Laish, 23. 
 
 Larsa, 78, 79. 
 
 laivi''u. lawiat, 45. 
 
 lay, 57. 
 
 Leah, 50, 55, 57; Leah-tribes, 50 ff.. 
 
 58, 85. 
 Lebanon, 13, 16, 27,66. 81, 82. 
 Leshem, 23. 
 
 Levi, 37 ff., 44 ff., 57, 95. 
 Libnah, 13. 
 Litany, 14. 
 
 Liver, as seat of feeling and disposi 
 
 tion, 38. 
 Lot, 84. 
 
 Maachathites, 21, 22. 
 
 Machir, 21, 32 ff. 
 
 Madon, 14, 54. 
 
 Makkedah, 12, 13. 
 
 Manasseh, 11, 19. 20, 32 ff., 52. 
 
 Manetho, 59, 60. 
 
 Marduk-ahi-erba, 77. 
 
 Mari', 3. 
 
 Marquart, J., 88. 
 
 Maspero. G., 19, 47. 62. 
 
 Mas^ah, 48. 
 
 McLean, N., 18. 36. 
 
 Mi^Neile, A. H., 45. 
 
 Megiddo, 19,61. 73,74. 
 
 Menahem. 3, 4. 
 
 Merg el-Hadirah, 14. 
 
 Meribah,"48. 
 
 Merom, waters of, 14. 
 
 Meyer, Ed., 57, 60, 75. 
 
 Midian, 47. 
 
 Milkili, 67, 73, 80. 
 
 Minaean inscriptions, 45. 
 
 Mineptah, 82, 83, 86, 87, 90, 93, 95. 
 
 ' Minor' Judges, 51, 52. 
 
 Miriam, 48. 
 
 M/shor, 50. 
 
 Mitanni, 61. 63, 65. 
 
 Mizpah, land of, 14 ; north of Jeru- 
 salem, 11 ; in Gilead, 85. 
 
 Moab, 84. 
 
 Moon-god, 55. 
 
 Moses, 5, 22, 29, 36, 45, 48. 49, 56, 91 ; 
 historical character of, 10, 47. 
 
 el-Mugar, 12. 
 
 Miiller, W. M., 48, 59, 61, 62, 69, 75, 
 82, 83, 89. 
 
 Mursili, 82. 
 
 Muwattalli, 82. 
 
 Nahalol, 22. 
 
 Naharin, 61, 63, 65, 74. 
 
 Nahor, 77. 
 
 Nahrima. See ' Naharin'. 
 
 Namyawaza, 72. 74. 
 
 Naphtali, 22, 23 f., 25, 39, 51, 53 f., 
 
 57. 
 Naville, E., 83. 
 Neby Samwil, 11. 
 Negeb, 13, 18, 24, 28, 29, 30, 47. 48, 
 
 49, 52. 
 Neubauer, A., 24. 
 Ninib-tukulti-Asur, 77. 
 Nob, 49. 
 Nobah, 22, 84. 
 Noldeke, T.. 52, 57. 
 
 H 2
 
 100 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 Old Testament records, criteria for 
 
 testing historical value of, 9, 
 Orr, J., 90, 92. 
 Othniel, 4, 5, 18, 24. 
 
 Paddan-Aram, 77. 
 
 Palm-trees, City of, 29. 
 
 Peel, C. V. A., 41, 42. 
 
 Pekanan, 82. 
 
 Perizzites, 14, 37. 
 
 Petrie, W. M. Flinders, 12, 60, 61, 82, 
 
 90. 
 Philistines, 4, 13, 15, 19, 24, 26, 27. 
 Pbinehas {Pin^Ms), 47. 
 Phoenicia, Phoenicians, 15, 22, 25,26, 
 
 27, 55, 66, 70, 74, 82. 
 Phonetic Complement in cuneiform, 
 
 72, 
 Pithom, 83, 91. 
 Pocock, R. I., 42. 
 Priestly document (P) in Joshua, 26, 
 
 27, 53 ; in Pentateuch, 26, 30 f. 
 Priestly school, post-exilic, 52. 
 ' Prophets, the former ', 6. 
 Puah, 57. 
 Pudu-Hipa, 67. 
 
 Rd in Joshua, 12, 13, 14. 15, 17, 19, 
 
 25 f., 27, 93. 
 RJE in Joshua, 12. 
 Ra'amses. 83, 91. 
 
 Rachel, 57, 85 ; Rachel-tribes, 85. 
 Ramesse II, 62, 82, 83, 87, 89, 90, 91, 
 
 93, 95. 
 Ramesse III, 19, 62, 82. 
 Ra messe IV, 62. 
 Ranke, H., 86. 
 Rashi, 40. 
 
 Rawlinson, Sir H.C., 70, 77, 79. 
 Rebekah, 76, 85. 
 Rehob, 31. 
 Rehoboam, 32. 
 Reisner, G. A., 78. 
 Retenu, Upper, 61. 
 Reuben, 11, 22, 50 f., 57. 
 Rib-Adda, 66, 74, 75, 78. 
 rihaJ, ra'ahtl, hi. 
 Rim-Sin, 78, 85. 
 Robertson Smith, W., 39, 57. 
 Robinson, E., 28. 
 Rogers, R. W., 38, 74, 90. 
 Roosevelt, Theodore, 39, 41, 42. 
 
 SA-GAZ (people), 69 fi., 86, 93, 95. 
 
 Samas, 56, 
 
 Samson, 4, 5, 56. 
 
 Samuel, 5. 49 f. ; Books of, 2. 
 
 Sasu, 59, 75, 81. 
 
 Saul, 5, 18, 32. 
 
 Sayce, A. H.. 38, 79 ff., 83. 
 
 Scheil, v., 77, 78, 79. 
 
 Seir, 29, 
 
 Selous, F. C, 42. 
 
 Sennacherib. 15. 
 
 Sety I, 76, 81 f., 93,95. 
 
 Shaalbim, 24. 
 
 Shallum, 3. 
 
 Shalmaneser III, 3, 59, 
 
 Shalmaneser IV, 3 
 
 Shamir, 51. 
 
 Sharuhen, 60. 
 
 Shechem, 32, 37, 43, 46, 67, 74, 77, 86. 
 
 Shephelah, 11, 13, 18, 20, 23, 24. 
 
 Shihor, 15. 
 
 Shiloh, 49, 50 
 
 Shimron, 14, 54. 
 
 Shin'ar, 61. 
 
 Shishak, 8. 
 
 «'m', 39, 57. 
 
 Simeon, 13, 17, 18, 24. 28, 29, 31 f., 
 
 35, 37 ff., 57, 95. 
 Sinai, Theophany at, 47. 
 Singar, Gebel, 61. 
 Sinuhe, tale of, 47. 
 Skinner, J., 37, 52, 62, 78, 84. 
 Sleeping-sickness, 41. 
 ' Slopes, the', 13. 
 Smith, G. A., 13, 14, 21. 
 Socho, 12. 
 
 Solomon, 4, 31, 32, 90. 
 Sorek, vale of. 12, 23. 51. 
 Spiegelberg, W., 60, 89. 
 Spies, mission of the, 29, 30 f. 
 Steuernagel, C, 16, 23 f., 51, 52, 85. 
 Streck, M., 75. 
 Subbiluliuma, 64 f., 81. 
 Sudanese mercenaries, 78, 80. 
 Sun-god, 56. 
 Sutatarra, 65. 
 
 §utu, Sutu, 72, 74 f., 80, 86. 
 Suwardata, 73. 
 Suwekeh, Hirbet, 12. 
 
 Taanach, 19. 
 
 Tadu-Hipa, 65, 67. 
 
 Takkara, 19. 
 
 Tantui-ah, 19. 
 
 teU'el-Amarna Letters, 10, 63 ff., 86, 
 
 88, 91, 92, 94. 
 Tell 'Arad, 28. 
 Tell el-Hesy, 12. 
 Tell el-Mashuta, 83. 
 Tell el-Mutesellim, 19. 
 Tell es-Sultan, 11. 
 Tell el-Taannuk, 19. 
 Tent of Meeting, 48. 
 ' Tents ' = ' settlement ', 53. 
 Thebes, 64. 
 Thompson, R. C, 70. 
 Thureau-Dangin, F„ 79. 
 Thutmosi I, 61.
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 101 
 
 Thutmosi III, 61, 62, 88, 91, 95. 
 
 thutmosi IV, 63, 65. 
 
 tiglath-Pileser I, 75. 
 
 Tiglath-Pileser IV, 3, 4. 
 
 Tola, 51, 57. 
 
 tora, 45. 
 
 Tristram, Canon, 42. 
 
 Tusratta, 65, 66. 
 
 Ungnad, A., 38, 74, 79, 
 Ur, 79, 84, 85. 
 UR-BAR-RA, 38 f. 
 Urim and Tummim, 45. 
 
 ' Vale, the ', 19, 20, 28. 
 de Vogue, C. J. M., 55. 
 Vollers, K., 40. 
 
 Wadd, 45. 
 
 Wady el-'Aris (' Wady of Egypt ') 
 
 Wady 'Auba, 14. 
 
 Wady Berameh, 19. 
 
 Wfuly el-Kelt, 11. 
 
 Wady Sarar, 23, 51. 
 
 Wady es-Sunt, 12, 
 
 Wady Tumiiat, 83. 
 
 Wady Yarmuk, 21. 
 
 Warren, Sir Charles, 12. 
 
 Weber, 0., 67, 70, 81, 88, 89. 
 
 15. 
 
 Weidner, E. F., 65, 75, 76. 
 
 Wenamon, story of, 19. 
 
 Winckler, H,, 63, 65, 67, 70, 72, 75, 76, 
 
 77, 81, 88. 
 
 Yd'ar, 21. 
 
 Yabni el, 92. 
 
 Ya'di, 59. 
 
 Yahweh, Yahu, primitive worship of, 
 
 55 f. 
 Yalo, 24, 52. 
 Yam, 24. 
 
 Yauhamu, 73, 88. 
 Yapahi, 72, 74, 92. 
 Yarimuta, 88. 
 el-Yarmuk, Hirbet, 11. 
 Yenoam, 82. 
 
 ez-Zahariyyeh, 13. 
 
 Zebulun, 22, 25, 50, 51 ff. 
 
 Zechariah, 3. 
 
 Zephath, 29. 
 
 Ziklag, 24. 
 
 Zilpa,h, 57; Zilpah-tribes, 54 f., 58, 
 
 85, 
 Zimmern, H., 38, 
 Zimrida, 92. 
 Zin, wilderness of, 31. 
 Zorah, 23.
 
 INDEX OF BIBLICAL REFERENCES 
 
 Genesis : 
 
 
 
 PAGE 
 
 
 
 
 PAGE 
 
 X.21 68 
 
 xiii. 19 43 
 
 xi. 14 
 
 
 
 . 68 
 
 xvi. 20 
 
 
 
 . 57 
 
 xi. 28, 31 . 
 
 
 
 . 79 
 
 xvii. 7 
 
 
 
 . 48 
 
 xii. 4 b 
 
 
 
 . 90 
 
 xviii. 14 ff. 
 
 
 
 . 48 
 
 xii. 10-20 . 
 
 
 
 . 89 
 
 xxxii 
 
 
 
 . 49 
 
 xiv . 
 
 
 
 . 84, 90 
 
 xxxii. 25 ff. 
 
 
 
 . 48 
 
 XV. 7 . 
 
 
 
 . 79 
 
 xxxiii. 7-11 
 
 
 
 . 48 
 
 xix. 26 
 
 
 
 . 51 
 
 
 xxi. 5 
 
 
 
 . 90 
 
 Numbers : 
 
 xxiv . 
 
 
 
 . 77 
 
 xii 48 
 
 XXV. Iff.. 
 
 
 
 . 84 
 
 xiii, xiv 
 
 
 
 .30f. 
 
 XXV. 20 . 
 
 
 
 . 77 
 
 xiv. 26-85 
 
 
 
 . 91 
 
 XXV. 26 b . 
 
 
 
 . 90 
 
 xiv. 40-45 
 
 
 
 . 29 
 
 xxviii. 5 . 
 
 
 
 . 77 
 
 xviii. 2, 4 . 
 
 
 
 . 45 
 
 XXX. 11 
 
 
 
 . 55 
 
 XX. 13 
 
 
 
 . 48 
 
 XXX. 13 
 
 
 
 . 55 
 
 XX. 14-21 . 
 
 
 
 . 28 
 
 xxxi. 20, 24 
 
 
 
 . 77 
 
 xxi. 1-8 . 
 
 
 
 28 ff. 
 
 xxxii. 28 . 
 
 
 
 . 77 
 
 xxvi. 28 , 
 
 
 
 . 57 
 
 xxxiii. 19 . 
 
 
 
 . 43 
 
 XX vi. 29 . 
 
 
 
 . 32 
 
 xxxiv 
 
 37.^ 
 
 13 ff., 
 
 84, 86, 93 
 
 xxxii. 1, 33 
 
 
 
 . 22 
 
 XXXV. 10 . 
 
 
 
 . 77 
 
 xxxii. 18 . 
 
 
 
 . 91 
 
 XXXV. 22 . 
 
 
 
 . 50 
 
 xxxii. 39, 41, 42 
 
 
 21, 38 
 
 xxxvi. 11 . 
 
 
 
 . 30 
 
 
 xxxviii 
 
 
 
 . 52 
 
 Deuteronomy: 
 
 xii. 43 
 
 
 
 . 8U 
 
 i. 23 81 
 
 xlii. 24, 86 
 
 
 
 . 47 
 
 i. 41-46 . 
 
 
 
 . 29 
 
 xliii. 23 . 
 
 
 
 . 47 
 
 ii. 14 . 
 
 
 
 . 91 
 
 xlvi. 13 . 
 
 
 
 . 57 
 
 iii. 13ff. . 
 
 
 
 . 22 
 
 xlvii. 9 a . 
 
 
 
 . 90 
 
 X. 8 . 
 
 
 
 . 48 
 
 xlviii. 21. 22 
 
 
 
 43,86 
 
 xvi. 7 
 
 
 
 . 53 
 
 xlix. 3, 4 . 
 
 
 
 50 f. 
 
 xxvi. 5 
 
 
 
 . 77 
 
 xlix. 5-7 . 
 
 
 
 38 ff. 
 
 xxvii 
 
 
 
 . 44 
 
 xlix. 9 
 
 
 
 . 40 
 
 xxxiii. 6 . 
 
 
 
 . 50 
 
 xlix. 13 . 
 
 
 
 . 53 
 
 xxxiii. 8 . 
 
 
 
 . 48 
 
 xlix. 14, 15 
 
 
 
 25, 41 
 
 xxxiii. 8-11 
 
 
 
 . 45 
 
 xlix. 16 . 
 
 
 
 . 54 
 
 xxxiii. 18. 19 
 
 
 
 . 58 
 
 xlix. 17 . 
 
 
 
 . 41 
 
 xxxiii. 21 . 
 
 
 
 . 22 
 
 xlix. 19 . 
 
 
 
 . 55 
 
 xxxiii. 23 . 
 
 
 
 28 f. 
 
 xlix. 27 . 
 
 
 
 . 41 
 
 xxxiii. 29 . 
 
 
 
 . 56 
 
 1. 24-26 . 
 
 
 
 . 43 
 
 
 
 Joshua : 
 
 Exodus : 
 
 i-xii .... 11-15, 25 
 
 i. 8 87 
 
 iii. l-iv.20 
 
 
 . 11 
 
 i. llff. . 
 
 
 62, 83, 91 
 
 vi 
 
 
 
 
 11 
 
 ii. 1 . 
 
 
 . 48 
 
 vii. 1-viii. 29 
 
 
 
 
 11 
 
 ii. 10 
 
 
 
 . 47 
 
 viii. 17 
 
 
 
 
 19 
 
 ii. 23 
 
 
 
 . 83 
 
 viii. 30-85 
 
 
 
 , 
 
 44 
 
 iv. 14 
 
 
 
 45,48 
 
 ix. 1, 2 . 
 
 
 
 
 13 
 
 iv. 19 
 
 
 
 . 83 
 
 ix. 3-26 . 
 
 
 
 
 11 
 
 vi. 27 
 
 
 
 . 87 
 
 X. 1-27 . 
 
 
 
 
 12 
 
 xii. 40 
 
 
 
 87,90 
 
 X. 12. 
 
 
 
 
 24
 
 INDEX OF BIBLICAL REFERENCES 
 
 103 
 
 Joshua (continued) : 
 
 PAGE 
 
 
 
 
 PAGE 
 
 X. 12, 13 . 
 
 . 34 
 
 ii.l 16,27 
 
 X. 16ff. . 
 
 . 12 
 
 ii. 6-iii. 6 . 
 
 
 
 . 16 
 
 X. 28-43 . . . . 
 
 . 13 
 
 iv, v . 
 
 
 
 53 f. 
 
 X. 33 
 
 . 20 
 
 iv. 6, 10 . 
 
 
 
 . 54 
 
 xi 
 
 14, 53 f. 
 
 V. 13-15 . 
 
 
 
 . 33 
 
 xi.l7 
 
 . 55 
 
 V. 17 . 
 
 
 
 33,53 
 
 xii . 
 
 . 15 
 
 vii. 8 , 
 
 
 
 . 53 
 
 xii. 7 . . . 
 
 . 55 
 
 ix . . . 
 
 
 
 . 43 
 
 xii. 11 
 
 . 11 
 
 X. 1, 2 
 
 
 
 51, 88 
 
 xii. 16 . . . 
 
 . 19 
 
 xi. Iff.. 
 
 
 
 . 86 
 
 xiii. 2-6 , 
 
 . 15 
 
 xii. 3 
 
 
 
 . 35 
 
 xiii. 3 . . . 
 
 . 55 
 
 xii. 11. 12. 
 
 
 
 . 52 
 
 xiii. 13 . . . 
 
 . 21 
 
 xvii. 7 ff. . 
 
 
 
 44,49 
 
 xiii. 15-xxi. 42 
 
 . 26 
 
 xviii. 7, 27 
 
 
 
 . 23 
 
 XV. 6 . . . . 
 
 . 51 
 
 xviii. 9 
 
 
 
 . 35 
 
 XV. 11 . . . 
 
 . 86 
 
 xix. 1 
 
 
 
 . 49 
 
 XV. 14-19 . 
 
 13, 18, 31 
 
 xix. 9 
 
 
 
 . 53 
 
 XV. 21 . . . 
 
 . 86 
 
 xix. 10-12 
 
 
 
 . 18 
 
 XV. 26-32, 42 . 
 
 . 46 
 
 XX. 8 . 
 
 
 
 . 53 
 
 XV. 28 
 
 . 86 
 
 
 XV. 32 
 
 . 73 
 
 1 Samuel: 
 
 XV. 35 
 
 . 11 
 
 vii. 7 35 
 
 .XV. 43 . . . 
 
 . 86 
 
 xiii. 2 
 
 
 
 . 53 
 
 XV. 63 . . . 
 
 . 17 
 
 xiii. 18 . 
 
 
 
 . 39 
 
 xvii. 1 b, 2 
 
 . 32 
 
 xiv. 48 
 
 
 
 . 76 
 
 xvii. 14-18 
 
 20 f., 33 
 
 XV. 6 . 
 
 
 
 . 18 
 
 xviii. 16, 28 
 
 .17f. 
 
 XX. 1, 22 . 
 
 
 
 . 58 
 
 xviii. 17 . 
 
 . 51 
 
 xxvii. 7 ff. . 
 
 
 
 . 30 
 
 xviii. 27 . 
 
 . 86 
 
 
 xix .... 
 
 . 53 
 
 2 Samuel : 
 
 xix. 1-8 . 
 
 . 46 
 
 i. 17 ff. . ... 34 
 
 xix. 6 . . . 
 
 60,73 
 
 v.6ff. 
 
 
 . 18 
 
 xix. 14, 27 . . . 
 
 . 86 
 
 xii. 15 
 
 
 
 . 51 
 
 xix. 25 . . . 
 
 . 14 
 
 xviii 
 
 
 
 . 21 
 
 xix. 32-39. 
 
 . 23 
 
 xix. 41-43 
 
 
 
 . 32 
 
 xix. 47 . . . 
 
 . 23 
 
 xxiii. 9 
 
 
 
 . 88 
 
 XX. 7 . 
 
 . 25 
 
 xxiii. 14 . 
 
 
 . 88 
 
 xxi. 32 . . . 
 
 . 25 
 
 xxiii. 20 . 
 
 
 . 86 
 
 xxii. 4, 6, 7, 8 . 
 
 . 53 
 
 
 xxiv. 28 ff. 
 
 . 16 
 
 1 Kings : 
 
 xxiv. 32 . 
 
 . 43 
 
 vi. 1 . . . .4, 90, 91, 93 
 
 
 
 viii. 12, 13 
 
 
 . 35 
 
 Judges : 
 
 
 viii. 66 
 
 
 
 . 53 
 
 i. 1-ii. 5 . . . 
 
 16-25 
 
 ix. 11 
 
 
 
 . 25 
 
 i. 1 . 
 
 . 16, 36 
 
 ix. 16 
 
 
 
 . 20 
 
 i.3 . 
 
 . 28 
 
 xii. 1-24 . 
 
 
 
 . 8 
 
 1.3-7 
 
 . 17 
 
 xii. 1 
 
 
 
 . 44 
 
 i. 8 . 
 
 . 17 
 
 xii. 16 
 
 
 
 . 53 
 
 i. 9, 10, 11-15 . 
 
 . 18 
 
 xii. 28 
 
 
 
 . 49 
 
 i. 16, 17 . . 13,11 
 
 ?, 27, 28 ff. 
 
 xii. 31 
 
 
 
 . 49 
 
 i. 18 . 
 
 . 18 
 
 xiv. 25-28 
 
 
 
 . 8 
 
 i. 19 . 
 
 18 f. 
 
 
 i. 20, 10 b, 11-15 . 
 
 14, 18, 31 
 
 2 Kings : 
 
 i. 22fF. . 
 
 . 19 
 
 ix. 15 3 
 
 i. 27-29 . 
 
 . 19 
 
 X. 32, 33 3 
 
 i. 30 ... 
 
 . 22, 51 
 
 xiii. 22-25 .... 3 
 
 i. 31,32 . 
 
 22 
 
 xiv. 7 86 
 
 i. 33 . 
 
 . 22 
 
 
 i. 34 . 
 
 22 f. 
 
 1 Chronicles: 
 
 i. 35 . 
 
 . 24 
 
 ii 
 
 . 
 
 . 
 
 . . 30
 
 104 
 
 INDEX OF BIBLICAL REFERENCES 
 
 1 Chrokicles {continued) : 
 
 page 
 
 Jeremiah : 
 
 page 
 
 vi. 3-10 . 
 
 . 4 
 
 V. 6 . 
 
 . 39 
 
 vi. 61 
 
 . 25 
 
 
 
 vi. 70 
 
 . 19 
 
 Lamentations : 
 
 
 xi. 12 . . . 
 
 . 88 
 
 iv. 5 . 
 
 . 57 
 
 si. 26 . . . 
 
 . 88 
 
 iv. 11 . . . . 
 
 . 40 
 
 2 Chronicles : 
 
 
 EZEKIEL: 
 
 
 x-xii. 
 
 . 8 
 
 V. 13 
 
 . 40 
 
 xxvi. 6 . . . 
 
 . 86 
 
 vi. 12 ... . 
 
 . 40 
 
 
 
 vii. 3 . 
 
 . 40 
 
 
 
 xiii. 15 . 
 
 . 40 
 
 Nehemiah : 
 
 
 xvi. 3 . . . 
 
 . 40 
 
 xi. 25 . . . 
 
 . 86 
 
 XX. 8. 21 . 
 
 . 40 
 
 
 
 xxi. 35 
 
 . 40 
 
 Isaiah : 
 
 
 xxiii. 23 . 
 
 . 75 
 
 i. 18 . 
 
 . 57 
 
 xxix. 14 . 
 
 . 40 
 
 viii. 23 . . . 
 
 . 25 
 
 
 
 xiii. 21 . . . 
 
 . 38, 39 
 
 Psalms : 
 
 
 xxi. 2 
 
 . 35 
 
 vii. 6 . 
 
 . 38 
 
 xxxvi. 10 . 
 
 . 35 
 
 xvi. 9 
 
 . 38 
 
 li. 1 . 
 
 . 40 
 
 XXX. 13 . . . 
 
 . 38 
 
 lvi.6. . . . 
 
 . 45 
 
 Ivii. 9 . . . 
 
 . 38 
 
 Ixv. 11 . 
 
 . 55 
 
 cviii. 2 . . . 
 
 . . ^
 
 SCALE 1:7,000,000 I I 1 I I I I 
 
 WESTERN ASIA IN THE SECOND MILLENNIUM B.C.
 
 t^iA^U. _^/^ 
 
 ''■>,
 
 THE LAND OF CANAAN, to illustrate the sites named in the Lectures 
 
 0_ 5 to 20 English Miles
 
 Ill 
 
 Earliest migration of ancestors of Israel (Abraham) into Canaan, dated, according to Biblical tradition, about the time of Hammurabi (c«>. 2100 B.C.). 
 A migration from S. Canaan into Egypt with the Hyksos may be indicated by the tradition of Gen. xii. 10-20. Cf. pp. 78 f.. 84 f., 89.
 
 IV 
 
 Beer-sheba 
 
 THE LAND OF CANAAN. Theory of the distribution of the Leah-tribes and Handmaid 
 tribes in Canaan cir. 15th century B.C., prior to the arrival of th6 Joseph-tribe. 
 Cf. pp. 37, 43 f., 50 ff., 85.
 
 VI 
 
 ^'^ ^%^>,-v:-'''"v 
 
 THE LAND OF CANAAN Final position of the tribes of Israel in Canaan.
 
 m
 
 THE LIBRARY 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA 
 
 Santa Barbara 
 
 THIS BOOK IS DUE ON THE LAST DATE 
 STAMPED BELOW. 
 
 Fl 
 
 rr-:^.l; 
 
 J0w-12,'67(H6886s8)9483
 
 
 ;^H;.:*h 
 
 
 Wm