History of Dor. 51 



the text, greatly added to the difficulties. But Avhatever may be 

 the correct reading of the rest of the passage, the explanation given 

 for nnji^vti^ is apparently the only one that will really account 

 for its presence in the verse. 



That the above interpretation of the occurrence of H^^n T^^^'^^ 



■:\T- -: : 



in Josh. 17: 11 is correct is rendered still more sure by the study of 

 a similarly obscure phrase in Isaiah 05: 7. Here at the end of the 

 verse we read : Dp^H ^V H^b^X"! DPhVS: ^hlDI • The conclud- 



I T . T T T \ 



ing phrase of the preceding verse (65:6) reads: Dp^fl '?J^ T)fj?^\- 

 In some manuscripts there must have been variation in, or doubt 

 about^ the reading of the preposition. (The form '7j7 of our M.T. 

 is obviously a combination of the two readings '^K and '7^)- Con- 

 sequently, some scribe seems to have placed in the margin opposite 

 verse 7 a note calling attention to the fact that the undoubted read- 

 ing of verse 6, the "first" (H^b'^^'^) occurrence of the phrase, was 

 DJP'n '7V • When this gloss, viz. b^ tl^tfKl > was transferred 

 from the margin into the text, the vowel of the "^J^ which already 

 stood there was carefully preserved. 



In each of the three cases discussed above (i, e., Josh. 17:11, 

 Ezek. 21:19 and Is. 65:7), the recognition of the gloss "first 

 time" or " third time " solves a riddle which has seemed insoluble. 

 Cases of the insertion of the similar gloss "second time" (D^JC^) 

 are already well known ; see for examj^le the commentators on 

 Ezekiel 4:6. 



A comparison of the Hebrew of Josh. 17:11 and Judg. 1:27 

 reveals the fact that the former has one name (viz. 'Hi pj^) more 

 than the latter. Nor does Endor appear in 1 Chron. 7:29. In 

 the Peshitto of Josh. 17:11, Endor has actually displaced Dor. 

 Together with Jibleam it is omitted in the Greek (A) of the verse 

 in Joshua'. Inasmuch as Endor lies considerably north of the rest 

 of this line of ])order towns, and the textual evidence for it is so 

 poor, it probably has no place at all in this list. It M^ould seem 

 that in some early manuscript Dor was written defectively. This 

 led to the conjecture that Endor Mas meant, which thus crept into 

 the text as an additional name. Some later reader decided, and 



' It is barely i^ossible that 'ESup of B" '' '"« may represent the name. — The 

 B-text also omits Taanach. These omissions iu the Greek are probably 

 accidental. 



