Page:02.BCOT.KD.HistoricalBooks.A.vol.2.EarlyProphets.djvu/176

 not been discovered yet. Shilchim, called Sharuchen in Jos 19:6, and Shaaraim in 1Ch 4:31, may possibly have been preserved in Tell Sheriah, almost half-way between Gaza and Beersheba (V. de Velde, ii. p. 154). Ain and Rimmon are given as Simeonite towns, and being written without the copula, are treated as one name in Jos 19:7 and 1Ch 4:32, although they are reckoned as two separate towns in Jos 19:7. But as they were also called En Rimmon after the captivity, and are given as one single place in Neh 11:29, they were probably so close together that in the course of time they grew into one. Rimmon, which is mentioned in Zec 14:10 as the southern boundary of Judah, probably the Eremmon of the Onom. (“a very large village of the Judaeans, sixteen miles to the south of Eleutheropolis in Daroma”), was probably the present ruin called Um er Rummanim, four hours to the north of Beersheba (Rob. iii. p. 8). Not more than thirty or thirty-five minutes distant from this, between Tell Khuweilifeh (Rob. iii. p. 8) or Chewelfeh (V. de Velde) and Tell Hhora, you find a large old but half-destroyed well, the large stones of which seem to belong to a very early period of the Israelitish history (V. de Velde, ii. p. 153). This was mentioned as a very important drinking-place even in the lifetime of Saladin, whilst to the present day the Tilâlah Arabs water their flocks there (see Rob. iii. p. 8). To all appearance this was Ain (see V. de Velde, Mem. p. 344). “All the cities were twenty and nine, and their villages.” This does not agree with the number of towns mentioned by name, which is not twenty-nine, but thirty-six; to that the number twenty-nine is probably an error of the text of old standing, which has arisen from a copyist confounding together different numeral letters that resembled one another. Some commentators and critics explain this difference on the supposition that originally the list contained a smaller number of names (only twenty-nine), but that it was afterwards enlarged by the addition of several other places by a different hand, whilst the number of the whole was left just as it was before. But such a conjecture presupposes greater thoughtlessness on the part of the editor than we have any right to attribute to the author of our book. If the author himself made these additions to his original sources, as Hävernick supposes, or the Jehovist completed the author's list from his second document, as Knobel imagines, either the one or the other would certainly have altered the sum of the whole, as he has not proceeded in so thoughtless a manner in any other case. The only way in which this conjecture could be defended, would be by supposing, as J. D. Michaelis and others have done, that the names added were originally placed in the margin, and that these marginal glosses were afterwards interpolated by some thoughtless copyist into the text. But this conjecture is also rendered improbable by the circumstance that, in the lists of towns contained in our book, not only do other differences of the same kind occur, as in v. 36, where we find only fourteen instead of fifteen, and in Jos 19:6, where only thirteen are given instead of fourteen, but also differences of the very opposite kind, - namely, where the gross sum given is larger than the number of names, as, for example, in Jos 19:15, where only five names are given instead of twelve, and in Jos 19:38, where only sixteen are given instead of nineteen, and where it can be shown that there are gaps in the text, as towns are omitted which the tribes actually received and ceded to the Levites. If we add to this the fact that there are two large gaps in our Masoretic text in Jos 15:59-60, and Jos 21:35, which proceed from copyists, and also that many errors occur in the numbers given in other historical books of the Old Testament, we are not warranted in tracing the differences in question to any other cause than errors in the text.