Page images
PDF
EPUB

(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.

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 sub

AND the LORD spake unto Moses in the urbs for the cities round about them.

1 Josh. 21. 2.

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.

[blocks in formation]

awares.

12 And they shall be unto you cities for refuge from the avenger; that the manslayer die not, until he stand before the congregation in judgment.

13 And of these cities which ye shall give six cities shall ye have for refuge.

14 Ye shall give three cities on this side Jordan, and three cities shall ye give in the land of Canaan, which shall be cities of refuge.

15 These six cities shall be a refuge, both for the children of Israel, and for the stranger, and for the sojourner among them that every one that killeth any person unawares flee thither. may

16 And if he smite him with an instru

ment of iron, so that he die, he is a murderer: the murderer shall surely be put to death.

17 And if he smite him with throwing a stone, wherewith he may die, and he die, he is a murderer: the murderer shall surely be put to death.

18 Or if he smite him with an hand weapon of wood, wherewith he may die, and he die, he is a murderer: the murderer shall surely be put to death.

19 The revenger of blood himself shall slay the murderer: when he meeteth him, he shall slay him.

20 But if he thrust him of hatred, or hurl at him by laying of wait, that he die;

21 Or in enmity smite him with his hand, that he die: he that smote him shall surely be put to death: for he is a murderer: the revenger of blood shall slay the murderer, when he meeteth him.

22 But if he thrust him suddenly without enmity, or have cast upon him any thing without laying of wait,

23 Or with any stone, wherewith a man may die, seeing him not, and cast it upon him, that he die, and was not his enemy, neither sought his harm:

[blocks in formation]

2 Deut. 4. 41. Josh 20. 2, and 21.3.

3 Heb. above them ye shall give.

4 Heb. they inherit. 5 Deut. 19. 2. Josh. 20. 2.

6 Heb. by erroT.

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

these practices were sanctioned by the Arabian lawgiver; and this will also enable us to distinguish the difference in the means by which the same or nearly the same apparent end was sought to be attained. We quote the Mischat-ulMasabih, which is more full on the subject than the Koran, and of equal authority in Mohammedan law. We condense, in our own words, where necessary. Wilful murder, adultery, and apostacy, are the only crimes for which a Moslem ought to be punished with death. Fathers are not to be punished for the crimes of their children, nor children for those of their parents, either in this world or in futurity. This clearly discountenances the hereditary blood-feuds which we have noticed. And this indeed is still more expressly said in the Koran itself, where the avenger is told "not to exceed the bounds of moderation in putting to death the murderer in too cruel a manner, or by revenging his friend's blood on any other than the person that killed him." The law allowing compromise is:-"He who kills another intentionally, shall be given up to the family of the killed; then if they wish it they may kill him in retaliation; and if they like it they may take Diät (the price of blood) from him; which is one hundred camels, thirty of four years old, thirty of five years old, and forty with young: and he may make his peace with them for less if he can." Again:“ Whoever is killed or wounded, then his family, if the former, and himself if but the latter, has an option of one of these three things: he may either take retaliation, or forgive, or take Diät: but then, if he wishes any other thing besides these three:-for example, if he has forgiven, and afterwards asked for retaliation or Diät, then for him is the fire everlasting." Further on mercy is thus inculcated:-"There is no man who is wounded, and pardons the giver of the wound, but God will exalt his dignity and diminish his faults." The fine for accidental homicide is very severe, being one hundred camels, forty with young. We see the same apparent severity, differently exhibited, in the law of the text; and in both instances it was probably intended, not only to inculcate a respect for the life of man, but to lessen the inducement for the blood-avenger to pursue his victim beyond the adequate punishments thus provided. It is afterwards explained that the price of blood might be paid with other cattle than camels, or with goods, or money: but the price of camels was to form the standard amount, that is, whatever might be the value of camels at a particular time, the price of a hundred was to form the price of blood. For killing an infidel, a Moslem was on no account to be put to death; and although he must pay a blood-fine, it was to be only half the amount of the fine for slaying a Mohammedan.

We have preferred to dwell on the Arabian usages as appearing best calculated to illustrate the state of things which the law of this chapter seems to have been intended to meet. In some other countries, more under law than Arabia, but where the same principle operates, the practice has been settled on a footing more in coincidence with that which is established in this chapter. This shows that these people either took their improved practice from the law of Moses, or else were enabled themselves to perceive the fitness of a practice determined so many ages before by that law. Thus in Persia, the avenger cannot act in the first instance, but must carry his complaint to the proper authorities who examine the case, and if the guilt of murder is by proper witnesses fixed on the offender, he is consigned to the avenger, who has full power either to kill him, to forgive him, or to exact the price of blood. This option was wisely withheld from the Hebrew avenger by the law of the present chapter. To have attacked the popular notion of honour absolutely, would probably have rendered the new law inoperative. Something therefore was conceded to it, in allowing the goel to become the executioner, and by rendering it not unlawful for him to slay the homicide who had not fled to the places of refuge or was found beyond their limits. Yet so much good was obtained, that the goel could but very rarely kill an innocent man, and that a judicial inquiry usually preceded the exercise of his revenge. And this inquiry had the advantage that, even when it terminated in condemnation, it was calculated to prevent the murderer's family from seeking vengeance on the avenger; for most people would feel that no injustice had been done. Thus alternate murders on either side, for many generations, till the respective families were nearly or quite extirpated as we sometimes see in Arabia and elsewhere-would no longer be likely to occur. Judging from the subsequent history, it would seem that the object of this law was completely attained; for we read of no examples of family feuds and enmities proceeding from the avengement of blood, or of murders either openly or treacherously perpetrated under the national idea of honour; although the history of Joab furnishes two instances in which it was used as a pretext. On the subject of this note further information will be found in Michaelis's Commentaries;' the Koran, Sale's Preliminary Discourse,' and chaps. ii. and xvii; Mischat-ul-Masabih,' Book xiv.; Burckhardt's Notes on the Bedouins; Niebuhr's Voyage en Arabie ;' D'Arvieux's Travels in Arabia;' Malcolm's History of Persia,' &c. Numerous references might be added from the accounts of travels in various countries to the usages to which we have here adverted.

[ocr errors]
[blocks in formation]

saying, The tribe of the sons of Joseph hath said well.

6 This is the thing which the LORD doth command concerning the daughters of Zelophehad, saying, Let them marry to whom they think best; only to the family of the tribe of their father shall they marry.

7 So shall not the inheritance of the children of Israel remove from tribe to tribe: for every one of the children of Israel shall keep himself to the inheritance of the tribe of his fathers.

ance.

10 Even as the LORD commanded Moses, so did the daughters of Zelophehad:

11 For Mahlah, Tirzah, and Hoglah, and Milcah, and Noah, the daughters of Zelophehad, were married unto their father's brothers' sons:

12 And they were married into the families of the sons of Manasseh the son of Joseph, and their inheritance remained in the tribe of the family of their father.

13 These are the commandments and the judgments, which the LORD commanded by the hand of Moses unto the children of Israel in the plains of Moab by Jordan near Jericho.

6 Chap. 27.1. 7 Heb. to some that were of the families.

Verse 13. "Plains of Moab."-The territory of Moab lay south of the Arnon, and yet these "plains" are obviously to the north of that river "by Jordan near Jericho." This is accounted for by the fact that the Moabites had formerly possessed territories to the north of the Arnon, from which they had been driven out by the Amorites, the defeat of whom, under their king Sihon, by the Israelites, threw all the fine tract of country between the Arnon and the Jabbok into their possession, forming their first conquest of territory. The "plains of Moab," although on the north side of the Arnon, then, retained the name of the occupants previous to the Amorites. As the Israelites did not go to the Jordan while Moses lived, and Mount Nebo was the most advanced station in his lifetime, we are of course to understand the indication "by Jordan near Jericho" in the general sense of neighbourhood, or vicinity. Burckhardt, with a fair degree of probability, assigns the denomination to a considerable plain which occupies the greater part of the country between Mount Nebo and the Arnon, and which is enclosed between it and a small river called the Wale. This tract is now called El Koura, a term often applied to plains in Syria. The soil at present is very sandy and unfertile. The Wale joins the Arnon at about two hours' journey from the Dead Sea.

8 And every daughter, that possesseth an inheritance in any tribe of the children of Israel, shall be wife unto one of the family of the tribe of her father, that the children of Israel may enjoy every man the inheritance of his fathers.

9 Neither shall the inheritance remove

3 Heb. be wives. 4 Tob. 1. 9. 5 IIeb. cleave to thee, &c.

| from one tribe to another tribe; but every one of the tribes of the children of Israel shall keep himself to his own inherit

« PreviousContinue »