History of Dor. 45 



Similarly the emended text of verse 18 is to be rendered: 

 (18) The king of Aphek (i. e., Sharon) : One. 



In all these instances either the original compiler of the list or a 

 later glossator introduces by means of the preposition 7 a more 

 comprehensive designation of the whole realm ruled by each king. 

 By the "King of Dor", accordingly, is meant the ruler not only 

 of Dor proper but as well of the whole district above the city known 

 as Xaphath Dor'. 



The list of kings in Joshua 13: 7-24 seems to come from a writer 

 of the Deuteronomic schooP, It dates, therefore, from the Persian 

 j^eriod. Inasmuch as Dor can hardly have come under the domina- 

 tion of the Hebrews until a much later date', it is most improbable 

 that Joshua really defeated the King of Dor. Consequently the 

 notice in verse 23 merely reflects the opinion of a Deuteronomic 

 editor writing in the Persian period as to the probable extent of 

 Joshua's conquests. 



JOSHUA 17:11-13, JUDGES 1:27,28, 1 chronicles 7:29. 

 Following the account of the conquest of Palestine in the first 

 half of the book, Joshua 12-24 deals with the apportionment of 

 the territory. Chapters 16, 17 give a very confused description 

 of the borders of the "children of Joseph," i. e., Epliraim and the 

 western half -tribe of Manasseh. After the south border of the two 

 tribes as a whole, and the borders of Ephraim have been described 

 in chapter 16, Joshua 17 continues Avith the borders of Manasseh. 

 Verses 11-13 then give a list of cities located in Issachar and Asher 

 ideally assigned to Manasseh, of which the tribe was, however, 

 unable to secure possession. 



' The use here of Naphath Dor in parallel construction with the districts 

 Carmel, Galilee and Sharon (compare Josh. 11:2) is fairly conclusive 

 evidence that the term refers to a region dependent on or adjacent to the 

 city of Dor, and is not merely another name for the city itself. See the 

 chapter on Naphath Dor. 



- Bennett assigns it to D-; Carpenter and Battersby to R'; Steuernagel to 

 the Deut. school. Holzinger is inclined to assign it to P*-', though perJiaps 

 in dependence on JE. 



^ It is open to doubt whether Dor itself ever came under Hebrew rule. 

 At least there is no satisfactory evidence to prove that it did. 



