Глава 17

1–6. Generations of the Manasseh tribe who received inheritance in the West Jordan country. 7–13. The boundaries of the inheritance of the half-tribe of Manasseh and the cities belonging to it in the inheritance of the tribes of Issachar and Asher. 14–18. Statement by the tribe of Ephraim and the half-tribe of Manasseh regarding the inadequacy of the inheritance they received. Joshua 17:1. And the lot fell to the tribe of Manasseh, because he was the firstborn of Joseph. Machir, the firstborn of Manasseh, the father of Gilead, who was brave in the war, was given Gilead and Bashan. Since the tribe of Manasseh had already received an inheritance in the East Jordanian country (Joshua 13:29–30), therefore, the biblical writer, speaking about the endowment of this tribe with a new inheritance in the West Jordanian country, explains why it was given and who exactly received it. The reason is indicated by the words “since he *9 was the firstborn of Joseph.” By virtue of his birthright, which gives the right to a double share of the inheritance (Deut. 21:15–17), Manasseh is given a double inheritance. In the East Jordanian country, Machir, the firstborn of Manasseh, received an inheritance, distinguished by the courage he showed in the conquest of Gilead (Num. 32:39). He is called "the father of Gilead" in the sense of the ruler of this country 161. Joshua 17:2. The rest of the sons of Manasseh, according to their tribes, also received inheritance, and the sons of Abiezer, and the sons of Helek, and the sons of Asriel, and the sons of Shechem, and the sons of Hepher, and the sons of Shemid. These are the children of Manasseh the son of Joseph, males, according to their families. Joshua 17:3. But Zalpaad the son of Hepher, the son of Gilead, the son of Machirov, the son of Manasseh, had no sons, but [only] daughters. These are the names of his daughters: Mahlah, Noah, Hoglah, Milcah and Tirzah. Joshua 17:4. They came to Eleazar the priest and to Joshua the son of Nun and to the leaders, and said: The Lord commanded Moses to give us an inheritance among our brothers. And they were given an inheritance, according to the commandment of the Lord, among their father's brothers. Joshua 17:5. And Manasseh fell to ten portions, besides the land of Gilead and Bashan, which is beyond the Jordan; Joshua 17:6. for the daughters of Manasseh received an inheritance among his sons, and the land of Gilead went to the rest of the sons of Manasseh. In the West Jordan country, the other five descendants of Manasseh received inheritance, according to their tribes, which are listed here, as in Numbers 26:30–33, and, in addition, the five daughters of Zalpaad from the generation of Hepher. The daughters of Zalpaad, who had no sons, were given inheritance in accordance with the command of Moses and the entire community (Num. 27:1-11). Thus, the tribe of Manasseh, according to the number of 10 clans, received 10 plots in Canaan, of which 5, given to the daughters of Zalpaad, together constituted one plot that belonged to the clan of Zalpaad. Joshua 17:7. The border of [the sons of] Manasseh goes from Asher to Michmethath, who is against Shechem; from here the border goes to the right to the inhabitants of En-Tappuah. The southern border of the Manasseh half-tribe coincided with the northern border of Ephraim, as can be seen from the names of the same cities as those indicated in Joshua 16:8. It came from Asir, as the city was called, which Eusebius indicated 15 Roman miles from Neapolis (Shechem) on the way to Scythopolis (present-day Bethsan); its place is indicated in the present village of Iazir or Teyazir, 5 1/2 hours' journey northeast of Shechem. From the city of Asher, the border went “to Michmephath, which is opposite Shechem” (about its place Joshua 16:6), - then “to the right to the inhabitants of En-Tappuah.” To the right - according to the Hebrew text “gaiyamin”, which in the LXX is taken as the proper name of the city Yamin, as translated in the Slavic Bible, and by Blessed Jerome and other Greek translators (Aquila and Symmachus) it is translated εὶς δεξιὰ - “to the right”. This last translation was apparently recognized as correct by Eusebius of Caesarea, as can be seen from the fact that he did not add any geographical indications to the name “Jamin”, but instead limited himself to referring to the translation of Aquila and Symmachus. Meanwhile, some of the new commentators (Knobel) consider the place of Yamin to be the current village of Yamon, an hour's journey southeast of Panaach (for its place, see Joshua 17:11), in the Jezreel Valley. What is incomprehensible in the words: “to the inhabitants of En-Tappuah” is that instead of a city, a mountain and a general area, the inhabitants are indicated (in the Hebrew text “yoshvei”) as a border point. The confusion caused by this in LXX is eliminated by the fact that the given Hebrew word is accepted as the name of the city (Ἰασσιβ according to the Vatican list, Ἰασῆφ according to the Alexandrian list) Jasif (Slavic Bible), whose position is currently, however, unknown. Joshua 17:8. The land of Tappuah went to Manasseh, and the city of Tappuah on the border of Manasseh went to the sons of Ephraim. Speaking about Tappuah, the biblical writer indicates that the land belonging to him was within the borders of the Manasseh half-tribe and geographically should have belonged to him, but in reality this city was in the possession of the tribe of Ephraim, and was, therefore, one of the cities mentioned in Joshua 16:9. Joshua 17:9. From here the limit descends to the Cane stream, on the south side of the stream. These cities belong to Ephraim, although they are among the cities of Manasseh. The border of Manasseh is on the north side of the stream and ends in the sea. Joshua 17:10. What is to the south is Ephraim, and what is to the north is Manasseh; the sea was their limit; They adjoined Asher on the north side and Issachar on the east. From Tappuah the border descended down to the above-mentioned stream Cana (Joshua 16:8) and ran along its southern side, on which the cities that lay within the borders of the Manasseh half-tribe actually belonged to Ephraim; then the border ran along the northern side of the stream and ended at the sea. The writer supplements this brief description of the border with the following explanation: what was located south of the named stream belonged to the tribe of Ephraim, and what lay to the north of it belonged to the half-tribe of Manasseh. The northern and eastern borders of the latter are indicated even more briefly: “they adjoined Asher on the northern side and Issachar on the eastern side.” Joshua 17:11. To Issachar and Asher belonged to Manasseh Beth-shan and its places, Ibleam and its places, the inhabitants of Dor and its places, the inhabitants of En-Dor and its places, the inhabitants of Taanach and its places, the inhabitants of Megiddon and its places, and the third part of Napheth [with its villages]. The biblical writer completes the brief description of the borders of the Manasseh half-tribe by listing the cities that were in the inheritance of the tribes of Issachar and Asher, but which belonged to the Manasseh half-tribe. Exactly what cities there were and how many there were, regarding this the Hebrew text and the oldest lists of the Greek translation of the LXX give different instructions. The following cities are listed equally in both: 1) Bethsan, which was located in the Jordan Valley, 1 1/2 hours from Jordan, on the road from Damascus to Egypt; in later times (Judith.3:10) it was called Scythopolis; its place, covered with extensive ruins, is currently called Beisan (for a description of its ruins, see Holy Land, II, p. 387); 2) “the inhabitants of Dor,” for the location of which see Joshua 11:2–3; 3) “the inhabitants of Megiddon”, about its location Joshua 12:21. The names of the other cities of Ivleam with its villages, En-Dora and Taanach, read here in the Hebrew text, are absent in the Vatican list and the first two in the Alexandrian list, which only contains, in addition to the Vatican list, the words καὶ τοὺς κατοικοῦντας Τανακ καὶ τὰς κώμας αὐτῆς - “and those living in the Tanakh and its weight.” In later Greek lists the number of cities is read here the same as in the current Hebrew text; obviously it is replenished on its basis. The original version of the LXX translation, as preserved in the Vatican List and partly in the Alexandrian List, is of particular importance here, since it opens the way to an explanation of the following words in the Hebrew text that follow the enumeration of cities: “sheloshet tannafet,” which literally means “three heights” (the word “nafet” is used only in this place). The explanation of this expression presents great difficulties due to the fact that in the preceding words, in relation to which it obviously serves as a conclusion, not three, but six cities are listed. For those guided exclusively by the Hebrew text, this number three is explained in the sense that of the six cities named, it refers to the last three: Endor, Taanach and Megiddo, but the text does not give any basis for this. Since according to the Vatican list the names of only three cities are read in this place 162, the expression “three heights” or “three regions” 163 is quite clear why this translation of the given Hebrew expression could be recognized as its most appropriate rendering 164. As for the other cities named here in the current Jewish text, Ivleam was located in the Jezreel Valley, probably on the site of the present Belyame, as the spring and the ruins near it are called, about 10 miles south of Jezreel; En-Dor on the northern slope of Little Hermon, on the site of the present village of Evdur; about Taanach see Joshua 12:21. Of these cities, Ibleam and Taanach are named in Judges 1:27 among the cities from which the sons of Manasseh did not expel the Canaanites; hence, probably, the names of these cities were transferred to the Hebrew text (Joshua 17:11); the name of the third, En-Dora, which is absent here from the LXX, is not recognized as original in the Hebrew text and by some of the latter’s supporters due to its absence in Judges 1:27 according to the Hebrew text; they see in it nothing more than a modification of the previous name: Dor 165. Joshua 17:12. The sons of Manasseh could not drive out the inhabitants of these cities, and the Canaanites remained to live in this land. Joshua 17:13. When the children of Israel came into power, then they made the Canaanites tributaries, but they did not drive them out. From the cities named here, the half-tribe of Manasseh, at the beginning of its settlement in the inheritance inherited by it, was not able to expel the Canaanites living in them on its own, and later, when it gathered its strength, it did not do this because it found it more profitable to have the Canaanites living in them as tributaries. Thus, these cities remained for a long time Canaanite in their population, as was, for example, Bethsan at the end of the reign of Saul, whose body, along with his three sons, was hanged by the Philistines after the Battle of Gilboa on the walls of this city (1 Sam. 31:10), confident that the shame of the Israeli king would find full sympathy in the inhabitants of this city. Joshua 17:14. The sons of Joseph spoke to Jesus and said, “Why have you given me one lot and one portion for an inheritance, while I am a crowded lot, because the Lord has so blessed me?” To the story of what inheritance the tribe of Ephraim and the half-tribe of Manasseh received and how they used the cities they inherited, the biblical writer added an account of an event relating to this subsequent time, and remarkable in the sense that it revealed the special character of the descendants of Joseph. Such an event was precisely the expression before Joshua on their part of dissatisfaction with the one inheritance they received as inappropriate for their large population. On the merits of the case, this statement had no basis and was unfair. In fact, these 1 1/2 tribes were not so populous as to require a larger allotment. According to the last census (Num. 26:1-2), the tribe of Ephraim had 32,000 adult males, all of Manasseh - 52,700, half of it, therefore, could have about 26,000, and in total they could consist of 58,000, while the tribe of Judah had 76,000, Dan - 64,400, moreover, the inheritance they received Although it was generally mountainous, it was a very fertile strip of land due to the fact that the mountains located in it were not very high and rocky, interspersed with plateaus and valleys irrigated by numerous springs, and the Sharon Valley (from Carmel to Jaffa) stretching on the western side of the mountains was distinguished by extraordinary fertility, which this area has retained to the present day. In this state of affairs, the statement of the indicated tribes served as an expression only of their conceit and pretentiousness, which the Ephraimites repeatedly showed in subsequent times, to the detriment of the general life of the people (Judges 8: 1, 12: 1, etc.). This time the claims of the house of Ephraim did not lead to sad consequences thanks to the wise attitude of Joshua towards them. Joshua 17:15. Jesus said to them: If you are crowded, then go into the forests and there, in the land of the Perizzites and Rephaims, clear a [place] for yourself, if Mount Ephraim is too narrow for you. In answering his fellow tribesmen, he does not prove the injustice of their demands; he takes note of their reference to their numbers and the implied strength, but from here he draws a completely different conclusion, which directed their activity not to the expansion of their inheritance at the expense of the adjacent lands, but to the best possible use of what they received. He advises them to confirm their words with deeds and expand their destiny through the expulsion of the Canaanites who remained in it. By “forests in the land of the Perizzites and Rephaims” we mean, in all likelihood, the wooded areas within the inheritance of these tribes, and not outside it, since clearing the forest outside this inheritance would be an invasion of the possession of the other tribes. If these forests in the words of Joshua differ from the “mountain of Ephraim,” then this only shows that the latter name was not applied to the entire inheritance of these tribes, but only to its main part, which was particularly mountainous in nature and inhabited by the Ephraimites. However, in the Vatican and Alexandria lists the words “to the land of the Perizzites and Rephaims” are not read; they passed into later Greek lists from Origen's Hexapla, as shown by the asterisk with which they are marked in some of these lists 166. Joshua 17:16. The sons of Joseph said: The mountain will not remain behind us, because all the Canaanites who live in the valley have iron chariots, both those who are in Beth-san and the places dependent on it, and those who are in the valley of Jezreel. "Sons of Joseph", i.e. The Ephraimites and Manassites, however, continued to insist that Mount Ephraim was still not enough for them even if, using the advice of Joshua, they even cleared the wooded areas. The Greco-Slavic translation of the initial words of this verse οὐκ ἀρκέσει ἡμῖν τὸ ὄρος τὸ Εφραιμ - “Mount Ephraimli is not enough for us” represents the most accurate rendering of them from Hebrew 167. In support of this, they pointed to the iron chariots of the Canaanites as an insurmountable obstacle to the occupation of the plains that make up the best part of the land of Canaan. In particular, they pointed to the military chariots of the Canaanites who lived in Beth-san (Joshua 17:11) and in the vast Jezreel Plain, which represented the most fertile strip in the land of Canaan, which the Canaanites defended with all their might. They felt unable to expel the Canaanites, who continued to occupy the most fertile areas, without having the same improved weapons, and therefore had to limit themselves to the worse - comparatively - part of the inheritance that they received, which at the same time turned out to be insufficient for them. In this statement of the Ephraimites and Manassites, their conceit is already replaced by cowardice; it clearly shows a lack of self-confidence, a lack of courage, not to mention the hope for higher help. Joshua 17:17. But Jesus said to the house of Joseph, Ephraim, and Manasseh, “You are a great people, and your strength is great; You will have more than one lot: Joshua 17:18. and the mountain will be yours, and this forest; you will clear it, and it will be yours to the very end; for you will drive out the Canaanites, although they have chariots of iron, and although they are strong, [you will overcome them]. And this statement could not, of course, incline Joshua to increase the lot of his fellow tribes. The struggle with the Canaanites, who remained in their inheritance, was, of course, a great difficulty, which the other tribes later experienced (Judges 1:19), but this difficulty could not be insurmountable after the main strength of the Canaanites was broken. She had to contrast the full exertion of the forces that these tribes had at their disposal, and irresistible courage with the confidence of success. Joshua pointed this out to the “house of Joseph” *10, addressing it with the words: “You are populous and your strength is great; You will have more than one lot." Joshua then reveals the hope for expansion of the inheritance expressed in the last words with greater certainty, predicting to his fellow tribesmen that they will fully own the inherited inheritance with the inclusion of wooded areas and “their outcome” (in Hebrew “totzeotav”), i.e. plains where the mountains end, and that they would drive the Canaanites out of their inheritance, notwithstanding their iron chariots. This understanding of this expression is based on the peculiarity of the Hebrew text that the name Gilead is used here with the member “gaggilead”, and when the proper name of the son of Machir is meant by Gilead, it is used without an article, as in Joshua 17:3 or Numbers 26:29. In the ancient Vatican list of Joshua 17 it reads: Βαιθσαν καὶ αἱ κῶμαι αὐτῶν καὶ τοὺς κατοικοῦντας Δωρ καὶ τὰς κώμας αὐτῆς καὶ τοὺς κατοικοῦντας Μαγεδδω καὶ τὰς κώμας αὐτδς καὶ τὸ τρίτον τῆς Μαφετα καὶ τὰς κώμας αὐτῆς . "Tresregiones". Field. Origenis Hexapl. True, in the LXX it is translated differently, through τὸ τρίτον τγς Μαφετὰ (in the Vatican list) or Ναφετα (in the Alexandrian and other lists), which means “and the third part of Nafef.” But there is no reason to insist on the exceptional accuracy of this translation, adopted by Blessed Jerome (tertia pars urbis Nopheth), in view of the difficulty of imagining a city divided into three parts so that one of them belonged to one tribe, and the others to another or two others. It is remarkable that the Ostroh reference workers were not satisfied with the Greek-Slavic translation of “the third part of Nafef” and added to it: “three countries” (V.K. Lebedev, 311), which represents a new translation of the given expression of the Hebrew text. Dillmann. Die Bucher Numeri… Iosua, 545. The Hebrew verb “matza” read in this place is used here, as one must think, in the meaning of “to be sufficient,” as in some other places, for example, in Numbers 11:22: “so that ... there is enough.” The further words of the Hebrew text: “Ephraim and Manasseh” are not read in the Vatican and Alexandrian lists. You might be interested in: