Verse 13 of that chapter describes the Israelites as encamped on the other (the south) side of the Arnon; then follows a poetical passage in which the names in question occur, and which are never anywhere else mentioned as parts of the journey. Indeed the Israelites do not seem then to have crossed the Arnon, for it is immediately before said that they were on the south side of that river, and no mention is made of their having previously crossed; on the contrary, the Samaritan text has, after the poetry in which these names occur, the same passage which we find in Deut. ii. 24, namely, “Rise ye up, take your journey, and pass over the river Arnon." These places therefore belong to the south side, if they are stations; but there is no room there for them, the Hebrews being already on the Arnon: and if we allow them to be sought north of the Arnon, where are they to be fixed? Not between the Arnon and Dibon, the distance being so small; and between Dibon and Mount Nebo, where they are usually placed, they are not wanted, for the distance does not exceed eleven miles, and two stages are given to it in the present text (verses 46, 47). surely is quite enough without bringing in other intermediate stations, to make, in this short distance, nearly as many stages as miles. No doubt there were such places in the neighbourhood of the Arnon; but we can find no reason to think that they were stations on the journey.

52. "Pictures."-Waterland renders the word (UD, maskith,) by "obelisk," and Boothroyd by "sculptured stones." The latter is the best translation because the least definite. We believe every kind of sculptured figure applicable to idolatrous purposes is intended. This is the more probable because elsewhere "graven" or sculptured "image," is usually employed in connection with "molten image," which follows here. The word maskit is the same that occurs in connection with "stone" in Levit. xxvi. 1., where see the note.

23 The prince of the children of Joseph, children of Issachar, Paltiel the son of for the tribe of the children of Manasseh, Azzan. Hanniel the son of Ephod.

24 And the prince of the tribe of the children of Ephraim, Kemuel the son of Shiphtan.

25 And the prince of the tribe of the children of Zebulun, Elizaphan the son of Parnach.

26 And the prince of the tribe of the

27 And the prince of the tribe of the children of Asher, Ahihud the son of Shelomi.

28 And the prince of the tribe of the children of Naphtali, Pedahel the son of Ammihud. 29 These are they whom the LORD commanded to divide the inheritance unto the children of Israel in the land of Canaan.

Verse 2. "The land of Canaan with the coasts thereof."-This chapter contains materials for a map; and a well-constructed map would form the best commentary upon it. Under this impression we shall not enter into any large details, but confine ourselves to a few occasional remarks and explanations. But it may be well to premise that the real difficulties of this chapter are much increased in our version by the want of minute topographical propriety in the translation. In such a description as this, the sense often entirely depends on which one out of several senses we may assign to a particular Hebrew preposition, the correct rendering of which, in many instances, required a larger measure of local knowledge than was possessed at the time our translation was made; and, indeed, than can well be said to be possessed at present. We shall therefore take the liberty of giving Dr. Boothroyd's translation of this passage, which we consider particularly happy, and which claims the more attention from the fact that the learned translator has not, so far as we can perceive from his notes, any topographical theory calculated to exercise any influence upon his version. 3"Your south corner shall be at the wilderness of Zin adjoining to Edom; and your south border shall be the utmost point of the salt sea eastward; 4 And your south border shall wind to the ascent of Akrabbim, and pass on to Zin; and thence extending to the south of Kadesh-barnea, it shall go on to Hazar-addar, and pass on to Azmon: 5 And from Azmon the boundary shall wind about to the river of Egypt, and its termination shall be at the sea." Thus much for the south border, which is more difficult to define than any of the others. From the general specification in verse 3 we learn the breadth of the southern boundary, namely, from the great desert valley of Zin to the Mediterranean, and this there is no difficulty in understanding; but the remaining verses, which specify where and how the boundary line is to be drawn between these two points, are not equally clear. The only two views we have met with on the subject, whether in maps or books, are those, one of which draw the line just from the south of the Dead Sea to the supposed river of Egypt, at El Arish, the ancient Rhinocorura-that is from N. lat. 31° 5' to 31° 15', and the other draws the same line from the Gulf of Akaba to the eastern or Pelusiac branch of the Nile. The text must now be necessarily obscure which admits so wide a difference in the interpretation. The former understands that the statement refers to the country actually occupied by the Jews; and the latter, that it comprehends the region southward over which, in the time of Solomon, their power for a time extended. The whole of the positions are fixed according to these views. Thus the "ascent of Akrabbim" is fixed by one class of persons to the range of hills adjoining the Dead Sea on the south-west; whereas the other finds it in the mountains of Akaba near the town at the head of the gulf of that name. We are strongly disposed to think that the truth lies between the two opinions. It is not likely that in this place Moses, who does not even take into account the country beyond Jordan, where the two tribes and a half were settled, should, in one direction only, speak with a view to the remote and future extent of Solomon's dominion. And still less was it likely, that he, who had been so much troubled by the Egyptian tendencies of the people, and their inclination to return to Egypt, should fix their frontier in one place, at the Nile. Besides, the topography of this chapter forbids this interpretation; for Kadesh-barnea is stated to be to the south of Akrabbim, and therefore, according to this theory, Kadesh-barnea must have been in the peninsula of Sinai!—an opinion which no one has ventured to advocate, though it necessarily results from advocated opinions. We cannot forbear to point out the corroboration which this passage affords to our position for Kadesh, on the borders of the desert of Zin. After specifying the "wilderness of Zin," in the third verse, as the eastern termination of the southern boundary line, the fourth verse goes on to say at what point the line should be drawn from thence westward; and the definition clearly is, that the eastern border should extend from the south of the Dead Sea and the ascent of Akrabbim, along the wilderness of Zin on the border of Edom, till it passed Kadesh, a place well known to the Israelites; and that there it should turn westward, and, passing in that direction Hazar-addar and Azmon, should make a bend of some kind or other to join the river of Egypt, which should form the remainder of the boundary to the Thus Kadesh is clearly defined as on the border of Zin, and is assumed as the point from the south of which the eastern extremity of the southern boundary line should be drawn off westward to the Mediterranean. Thus, in perfect conformity with the sacred text-particularly of the Hebrew text itself-we avoid the difficulties of the larger and intangible boundary on the one hand; and, on the other, add to the limit commonly assigned (and properly, so far as the actually settled country is concerned) a district, which, not being wholly desert, might furnish useful pastures to the southern tribes, while at the same time it gave them on their weakest border a frontier of open country, such as most people desire to possess in similar circumstances, and the right to which, properly asserted, would enable them to exclude strangers or enemies from establishing themselves in the immediate vicinity of their cultivation and their towns. This consideration alone would, in our opinion, sanction the conclusion to which we have been led, even with weaker corroborations than we have been enabled to adduce.

sea.

5. "The river of Egypt."-See the note on Gen. xvi. 18. Some of the considerations in the preceding note furnish additional reasons for believing that the "river of Egypt," mentioned in describing the boundaries of Israel, was not the Nile. Since writing the note above referred to we have perused the article by Dr. Hales, which convinced the Rev. T. H. Horne that the Nile is intended. Our perusal has strengthened the conclusion we had before been led to adopt. That Solomon's rule extended "to the border of Egypt," (1 Kings iv. 21) is adduced in proof that the Nile is intended by "the river of Egypt." But it proves just the contrary, for the Nile was not the border of Egypt, but formed the heart of Egypt. The Egyptian territory extended eastward to the parallel of the gulf of Suez, and often beyond, so that to have made his border the Nile, David or Solomon must have conquered a large extent of Egyptian territory. But they had no war with Egypt, and Solomon himself was the friend and son-in-law of its king, who on one occasion came up to the south of Palestine and took a Canaanitish city which he presented to the Hebrew king

(1 Kings ix. 16). The fact is, that Solomon's dominion did border on Egypt, not by extending to the Nile, but by his getting the upper hand of the small nations who were interposed between Palestine Proper and the old and intact north-western boundary of Egypt. And if Solomon's dominion did not extend to the Nile, certainly that of no other Hebrew king ever did. "The river of Egypt," therefore, when mentioned as a boundary, cannot mean the Nile. The present river of Egypt" probably denotes a stream which formed the extreme boundary of the country eastward of the Nile, which Egypt, even in those early times, professed to claim, and which derived its name from that circumstance. This river must have been, as we are now conscious, considerably more to the south-west than the "Oadi Gaza" of Dr. Richardson, which, in the note to Gen. xvi., we hastily indicated. It was probably not far from El Arish, to which, indeed, under the name of Rhinocorura, it is expressly referred by the Septuagint. That it was a stream somewhere between the southern frontier of Palestine and the Nile we are deeply convinced.

6. “The great sea.”—The Mediterranean is the only western border recognised in this verse. It is properly called "great," as contrasted with the smaller seas and lakes known to the Jews, namely, the Red Sea, the Dead Sea, and the Sea of Chinnereth or of Tiberias. The territory actually possessed, however, was not so simple and distinct as here defined, since the Israelites desisted from expelling the Canaanites and Philistines, and left them in possession of some important points on the coast. David first executed the intentions of the lawgiver in this matter, but even he seems rather to have subdued than dispossessed them. We shall see the consequences of this neglect as we proceed; for, as Michaelis remarks, "The clear possession of the sea coast is of infinite consequence to a state established in Palestine, even though it carry on no commerce; for without it the boundary can never be secure." The consequences of this neglect fully verified the prophecy in verse 55 of the preceding chapter. It is to be observed that even David made no attempt against the Phoenicians, known in Scripture as the people of Sidon and Tyre, who occupied the northernmost portion of the coast; but that, on the contrary, both he and Solomon were on the most friendly terms with the sovereign of Tyre. As the Sidonians are never mentioned in the list of the nations to be dispossessed and exterminated, it has been questioned whether it was at all the intention of Moses that they should be disturbed in their small but important domain, or whether, indeed, the ancient and more northern territory of Sidon was included within the northern limit assigned in this chapter to the Promised Land. We find, however, in Josh. xix. 28, 29, that the boundary of Asher was to reach "unto great Zidon;" but we might understand this not to include Sidon, were it not that it is afterwards mentioned, to the reproach of that tribe, that it had not expelled the inhabitants of Sidon (Judges i. 13). We. are therefore left to infer, that from their not being expressly mentioned in the Pentateuch among the devoted nations, the Israelites may have felt it more at their option than in other instances to leave them undisturbed, and even to cultivate amicable relations with so ingenious and enterprising a people, whose commerce and manufactures may have been of considerable benefit to themselves. But, after all, may not the Sidonian Phoenicians be considered as included under the general name of Philistines? And although the Lord does not say in the Pentateuch (to which the Jews have always paid more particular attention than to the rest of their Scriptures), that the Sidonians were to be driven out, he does say so in Josh. xiii. 6, where, however, the "Zidonians" may very properly mean, not the inhabitants of Sidon itself, but the Sidonian colonies in Mount Lebanon. But we must defer some further considerations on this subject to the texts with which they are connected.

7—9. “And this shall be your north border,” &c.—We here give, as before, Dr. Boothroyd's reading of these verses: "And this shall be your north boundary: From the great sea ye shall draw a line from the top of Lebanon: from the top of Lebanon ye shall draw a line to the entrance of Hamath; and the boundary shall pass on to Zedad: and the boundary shall go on to Ziphon, and its termination shall be at Hazar-enan." The principal improvement in this version is the substitution of "Mount Lebanon" for "Mount Hor," the occurrence of which name on the northern frontier, after having already found it, or another of the same name, beyond the southern, is well calculated to perplex the reader of the English Bible. The words rendered "mount Hor" in the common version, and "Mount Lebanon" by Boothroyd, are hor ha-hor; hor means "mountain," and our translators so render the first hor, but regard the other as a proper name. Literally, however, it is "the mountain of the mountain," which, according to the usage of the Hebrew language, means "the eminent mountain," or "the double mountain," as Dr. Hales understands. This palpably means Lebanon, which it would be surprising to find omitted, as in our version, in a description of the northern boundary. But Lebanon occurs by name in Josh. xiii. 5, in such a sense as to show that "the mountain of the mountain" can mean no other than Lebanon-that is, Anti-Libanus; for the Hebrews did not distinguish the two parallel ranges, which we call Libanus and Anti-Libanus, by different names, but generally mean by "Lebanon" AntiLibanus, which, besides being the loftiest, was the nearest with respect to them. No doubt the names here specified all indicate different places along the different parts of this range, which were required to form a northern frontier. For while we are prepared to question that the Hebrew territory extended beyond Anti-Libanus, we also cannot admit that, in the extent necessary to cover the breadth of the land, the limit any where fell short of the mountains.

10. "East border."-This is so clear as to need little explanation. The northern boundary being rather higher than the source or sources of the Jordan, two towns are mentioned (Shepham and Riblah) to guide the boundary line thither. "Ain" () probably denotes the commencement of the Jordan, understanding the word not as a proper name, but resolving it into its meaning, "fountain" or "source." After this the boundary is formed by the Jordan, the sea of Chinnereth, the Jordan again, and the Dead Sea: the small portion of eastern frontier from thence down the ancient valley of the Jordan to below Kadesh, was mentioned in the account of the southern frontier, and is not repeated here. It is observable that the line is drawn along the east side of the Jordan and the seas, so as to place these waters in the portion of the western rather than the eastern tribes.

CHAPTER XXXV.

1 Eight and forty cities for the Levites, with their suburbs, and measure thereof. 6 Six of them are to be cities of refuge. 9 The laws of murder. 31 No satisfaction for murder.

plains of Moab by Jordan near Jericho, saying,

2 Command the children of Israel, that they give unto the Levites of the inheritance of their possession cities to dwell in; and ye shall give also unto the Levites subAND the LORD spake unto Moses in the urbs for the cities round about them.

1 Josh. 21. 2.

16 And if he smite him with an instru3 Heb. above them ye shall give. Heb. they inherit. 5 Deut. 19. 2. Josh. 20. 2. 7 Exod. 21. 14. 8 Heb, with a stone of the hand. 9 Deut. 19. 11. 10 Exod. 21. 13. 11 Heb, no blood shall be to him. 12 Deut. 17. 6, and 19. 15. Matth. 18. 16. 2 Cor. 13. 1. Heb. 10. 28.

witnesses: but one witness shall not testify against any person to cause him to die.

31 Moreover ye shall take no satisfaction for the life of a murderer, which is guilty of death: but he shall be surely put to death.

32 And ye shall take no satisfaction for him that is fled to the city of his refuge, that he should come again to dwell in the land, until the death of the priest.

33 So ye shall not pollute the land wherein ye are for blood it defileth the land: and the land cannot be cleansed of the blood that is shed therein, but by the blood of him that shed it.

34 Defile not therefore the land which ye shall inhabit, wherein I dwell: for I the LORD dwell among the children of Israel.

13 Heb. faulty to die. 14 Heb. there can be no expiation for the land.

Verse 2. "Give unto the Levites...cities to dwell in.”-For some particulars concerning these cities, and also concerning the six appropriated as cities of refuge, as well as for illustrations of the principle and practice of asyla for involuntary criminals, we must refer to the notes on Josh. xxi., wishing, in the present chapter, to confine our attention to the remarkable particulars concerning blood-revenge which it brings under our notice.

12. "Refuge from the avenger.”—The object of the ensuing regulations is obviously to guard against the evils and abuses of a practice which remains to this day exceedingly prevalent in the East. This was the usage which rendered it a point of honour, indispensable and remorseless, for the nearest relative of a person slain to become the "avenger of his blood," and to rest not till he had destroyed the slayer. Moses is evidently legislating on existing usages. The character and function of the avenger of blood (goël) are alluded to as already well understood; and the desire is manifested throughout to save the slayer from the blind rage of the goël, until the case could be properly investigated; and then, if the offending person proved to have been guilty only of manslaughter, he received protection, whereas, if a murderer, the goël was allowed to execute his avenging office. We think that the practices now found among the Bedouin Arabs afford the most striking illustrations of the circumstances for which this chapter provides, and of the mischiefs it is intended to obviate. The custom of thar, or blood-revenge, appears to have undergone little alteration from the most ancient times, the law of the Koran having rather sanctioned than modified the usages which were existing before the time of Mohammed. This fact renders the illustration derived from this source the more appropriate. It is evident that the law before us restricts the avenger to the pursuit of the actual offender. This is not the case among the Arabs, who consider his whole family responsible for the deed, and regard the blood of a superior member of that family as much a satisfaction as that of the person by whom blood has been shed. There is, indeed, a rule of limitation, but one awfully wide and comprehensive; as, for instance, when a person is killed, the persons liable to vengeance are all those whose fourth lineal ascendant is at the same time the fourth lineal ascendant of the actual homicide; and so also the right to exact vengeance is enjoyed by all those whose fourth lineal ascendant is also the fourth lineal ascendant of the person slain. Besides this, the lineal descendants of all those who were entitled to revenge at the moment of the slaughter inherit this right from their parents; and the liability to vengeance descends in the same manner to the latest generations, whilst the matter remains unsettled. The only way in which it can be settled is, either by the pursued family sacrificing the criminal to the avenger, or by their agreeing to pay a heavy compensation, called "the price of blood;" but this blood-fine the avenger may refuse to accept, rather choosing to obtain blood for blood. The family of the offender may also refuse either of the alternatives; but whatever cause prevents a settlement, there can be no peace, truce, or alliance between the families who have thus a blood-feud between them; and this is sometimes the case even with whole tribes, ever ready, as the tribes are, to espouse the quarrels of their members. A man whose relation has been killed has scarcely any other option than to assume the office and claims of an avenger; for he is held to be disgraced for ever if he does not. So in Antar, a man of the tribe of Codháah thus addressed Gheidac, whose father had some time before been slain by Antar: "O Gheidac! thou art a marked man; it does not become thee to behave so haughtily towards the horsemen, when thou hast not yet revenged the murder of thy father: how canst thou presume to boast over the brave and the valiant?" The avenger, if blood only will satisfy him, esteems all means lawful by which the homicide may be destroyed; only he may not be molested while he is a guest in the tent of a third person, nor even if he takes refuge in the tent of his deadly foe. The full effect of the Mosaical regulation, discriminating between murder and manslaughter, will be also better apprehended when it is recollected that Arabian practice does not usually make such distinction: it is life for life, blood for blood, however the life were taken and the blood were spilt. Thus even life lost in fair and open battle obliges the near relative of the deceased to assume his avenging office. This has one good effect, that it tends to render the frequent frays and battles between different tribes nearly bloodless; for in Arabia a man dreads nothing more than to become involved in a blood-feud.

Moses, by forbidding the goël to bargain with a real murderer, to let him go free for a certain consideration, or even for allowing the manslayer to quit the city of refuge, recognises the existence of such a practice, and proceeded very differently from Mohammed, who gave his sanction to this custom, which he also found already existing. In point of fact, affairs of blood are now in Arabia usually made up in the end by a heavy blood-fine, payable to the avengers. It is not honourable for them, however, to make the first overtures at a compromise; and very often the avenger is not brought to yield to such a compromise till the third or fourth generation. The price of blood is usually offered at once by the homicide and his friends; but if the avenger will not enter into a compromise, he is obliged to allow a grace of three days and four hours, during which he may not attempt the lives of any of the persons whom, according to the rule we have mentioned, usage exposes to his vengeance. They avail themselves of this opportunity to remove to another tribe. The several tribes always grant their protection to such fugitives from other tribes; but the avenger is not precluded by this removal from taking measures to enforce his revenge when opportunity offers. Exiles of this sort are found in almost every camp, and remain until their relations are enabled in the end to effect a compromise. The extent to which the claim for blood operates may be estimated from the fact, that so many as a hundred tents are sometimes removed on account of a single murder-all, of course, belonging to persons whose lives were exposed to the avengers.

As to the price of blood, it varies in different tribes and at different times. Among the Aenezes it is fifty female camels, one deloul, or camel fit for mounting, a mare, a black slave, a coat of mail, and a gun. The mare, the slave, and the gun are never dispensed with, but the full number of camels is rarely required. After this account of the actual practices among the Arabian people, it will be interesting to observe to what extent