Jos 16:5-10 | KD | STEP | Territory of the tribe of Ephraim, according to its families . - Jos 16:5. “ The border of their inheritance was from the east Atroth-addar and (along the line) to Upper Beth-horon ,” - a brief description of the southern boundary, which is more minutely described in -3. Upper Beth-horon is mentioned here instead of Lower Beth-horon ( ). This makes no difference, however, as the two places stood quite close to one another (see at ). In the northern boundary of Ephraim is given, namely, from the middle, or from “a central point near the watershed” ( Knobel ), first towards the east ( and ), and then towards the west ( ). The eastern half of the northern boundary went ימּה, i.e., when regarded from the west, or looked at towards the west, to the north side of Michmethah . According to , this place was before Shechem, and therefore in any case it was not far from it, though it has not been discovered yet. Knobel supposes it to have been on the site of the present Kabate ( Seetzen , ii. p. 166), Kubatiyeh , an hour and a half to the south of Jenin ( Rob. iii. 154), assuming that Michmethah might also have been pronounced Chemathah , and that ב may have been substituted for מ. But Kabate is six hours to the north of Shechem, and therefore was certainly not “ before Shechem ” ( ). It then turned “ eastward to Taanath-shiloh ” (Τηαν̀θ Σηλώ, lxx), according to the Onom. ( s. v. Thenath ) ten Roman miles from Neapolis (Sichem), on the way to the Jordan, most probably the Thena of Ptol . (v. 16, 5), the present Tana , Ain Tana , a heap of ruins on the south-east of Nabulus, where there are large cisterns to be found (see Rob. Bibl. Res. p. 295; Ritter , Erdk. xv. p. 471). And “ then went by on the east to Janoah ” (i.e., Jano in Acrabittena regione , twelve Roman miles from Neapolis: Onom. ), the present ruins of Janûn , a miserable village, with extensive ruins of great antiquity, about three hours to the south-east of Nabulus, three-quarters of an hour to the north-east of Akrabeh ( Rob. Bibl. Res. p. 297; Van de Velde , R. ii. p. 268).

‏ Joshua 16:5-10

Jos 16:5-6 Territory of the tribe of Ephraim, according to its families. - Jos 16:5. “The border of their inheritance was from the east Atroth-addar and (along the line) to Upper Beth-horon,” - a brief description of the southern boundary, which is more minutely described in Jos 16:1-3. Upper Beth-horon is mentioned here instead of Lower Beth-horon (Jos 16:3). This makes no difference, however, as the two places stood quite close to one another (see at Jos 10:10). In Jos 16:6-8 the northern boundary of Ephraim is given, namely, from the middle, or from “a central point near the watershed” (Knobel), first towards the east (Jos 16:6 and Jos 16:7), and then towards the west (Jos 16:8). The eastern half of the northern boundary went ימּה, i.e., when regarded from the west, or looked at towards the west, to the north side of Michmethah. According to Jos 17:7, this place was before Shechem, and therefore in any case it was not far from it, though it has not been discovered yet. Knobel supposes it to have been on the site of the present Kabate (Seetzen, ii. p. 166), Kubatiyeh, an hour and a half to the south of Jenin (Rob. iii. 154), assuming that Michmethah might also have been pronounced Chemathah, and that ב may have been substituted for מ. But Kabate is six hours to the north of Shechem, and therefore was certainly not “before Shechem” (Jos 17:7). It then turned “eastward to Taanath-shiloh” (Τηαν̀θ Σηλώ, lxx), according to the Onom. (s. v. Thenath) ten Roman miles from Neapolis (Sichem), on the way to the Jordan, most probably the Thena of Ptol. (v. 16, 5), the present Tana, Ain Tana, a heap of ruins on the south-east of Nabulus, where there are large cisterns to be found (see Rob. Bibl. Res. p. 295; Ritter, Erdk. xv. p. 471). And “then went by on the east to Janoah” (i.e., Jano in Acrabittena regione, twelve Roman miles from Neapolis: Onom.), the present ruins of Janûn, a miserable village, with extensive ruins of great antiquity, about three hours to the south-east of Nabulus, three-quarters of an hour to the north-east of Akrabeh (Rob. Bibl. Res. p. 297; Van de Velde, R. ii. p. 268). Jos 16:7

From Janoah the boundary went down “to Ataroth and Naarath,” Ataroth, a different place from the Ataroth or Atroth-addar mentioned in Jos 16:3 and Jos 16:5, is apparently to be sought for on the eastern slope of the mountains by the side of the Ghor, judging from the expression “went down;” but it has not yet been discovered. Naarath, probably the same as Naaran, in eastern Ephraim (1Ch 7:28), is described in the Onom. (s. v. Naaratha) as viculus Judaeorum Naorath, five Roman miles (i.e., two hours) from Jericho, probably on the north-east. The boundary line then touched Jericho, i.e., the district of Jericho, namely on the north side of the district, as Jericho was allotted to the tribe of Benjamin (Jos 18:21). At this point it also coincided with the southern boundary of the tribe of Joseph (Jos 16:1) and the northern boundary of Benjamin (Jos 18:12). Jos 16:8

The western half of the northern boundary went from Tappuah westwards to the Cane-brook, and terminated at the sea. Tappuah, called En-tappuah in Jos 17:7, as the southern boundary of Manasseh, which is there described, and which ran from Michmethah to En-tappuah, coincides with the northern boundary of Ephraim, must not be identified with the royal town of that name mentioned in Jos 12:17, and therefore was not Kefr Kud (Capercota), on the west of Jenin (Ginäa). This place was so far to the north, viz., seven hours to the north of Nabulus, that the boundary from Michmethah, in the neighbourhood of Shechem (Nabulus) onwards, would have run from south to north instead of in a westerly direction. Still less can En-tappuah be found, as Van de Velde supposes, in the old well of the deserted village of Atüf, five hours to the east of Nabulus. It must have been to the west of Shechem; but it has not yet been discovered, as the country to the west of Nabulus and Sebastieh has “not been examined” (Van de Velde). The Cane-brook is no doubt the brook of that name mentioned by Bohad. (vita Salad. pp. 191, 193); only it is not quite clear “whether the Abu Zabura is intended, or a brook somewhat farther south, where there is still a Nahr el Kassab.” Jos 16:9

The tribe of Ephraim also received some scattered towns in the territory of the tribe of Manasseh, in fact all those towns to which Tappuah belonged, according to Jos 17:8, with the dependent villaGes. ^{▼▼The reason why the Ephraimites received scattered towns and villages in the tribe-territory of Manasseh, is supposed by Calvin, Masius, and others, to have been, that after the boundaries had been arranged, on comparing the territory allotted to each with the relative numbers of the two tribes, it was found that Ephraim had received too small a possession. This is quite possible; at the same time there may have been other reasons which we cannot discover now, as precisely the same thing occurs in the case of Manasseh (Jos 17:11).} Jos 16:10

From Gezer, however (see Jos 16:3), they could not drive out the Canaanites, so that they still dwelt among the Ephraimites, but were reduced to a state of serfdom. This notice resembles the one in Jos 15:63, and is to be interpreted in the same way.The inheritance of Manasseh on this side of the Jordan was on the north of Ephraim.