52 George Dalil, 



rightly, that Naphath Dor was meant ; his conjecture is preserved 

 in ri5-3n nt^'Pt^ at the close of the verse. In view of the proba- 

 bilities, and of the evidence against its originality, we must reject 

 -il J^j; from Josh. 17:11. 



Of the three passages cited (i.e. Josh. 17: 11-13; Judg. 1: 27, 28 

 and 1 Chron. 7:29) the one in Judges is in all probability the 

 oldest and most historical. Apparently the notice in Joshua has 

 been borrowed from that in Judges and has been modified to some 

 extent. To fit the later theory of the tribal domains, the Joshua 

 passao-e introduces the "correction:" "IJi'NDI IDL^'i^''-! • Just 

 what this theory in regard to the settlements of the tribes was, it is 

 impossible for us, in view of the confused and conflicting state- 

 ments regarding it, to determine. That Judg. 1 : 27, 28 is the 

 older and better account is further indicated by the fact that it 

 bluntly states that Manasseh did not drive out the inhabitants of 

 these cities (which, according to 2:lb-5a, they could have done 

 had they obeyed Jahweh's commands), while Josh. 17:12 softens 

 this down and lessens their guilt by declaring the children of 

 Manasseh were 7iot able to dispossess them. In the retention in 

 Josh. 17:11 of the accusative 'Dp'^-DlSI'l and of ^^C'n from Judg. 

 1 : 27 (where they fit into the construction as they do not at all in 

 the Joshua passage) there is added evidence for the dependence of 

 Josh. 17:11-13 on Judg. 1:27, 28. 



The list of boundaries of Manasseh in 1 Chron. 7 : 29 agrees in 

 content but not in form with Josh. 17: 11'. It would appear that 

 the Chronicler has rearranged the names he found in the other two 

 passages, so that the order followed by him is the correct geograph- 

 ical one, with Dor last. To change (with Moore and Budde) the 

 arrangement of the towns in Josh. 17:11, Judg. 1:27, so as to 

 follow the geographical order is hardly justifiable. Both passages 

 place Dor third in the list, and the gloss jlDJ HDC^'^J^ corroborates 



this order. The Taanach Jibleam order of Judg. 1 : 27 ma}" 



have been corrected by the one who borrowed the verse in Josh. 

 17: 11. Dor's position in both passages may be due to a doubt as 

 to which Dor Avas meant (cp. Endor in Josh. 17:11)". It would 



' As explained above, Jibleam is not given by the Chronicler (Hebrew) 

 though it is represented in the Greek by BaAa{a)d. 



"^ Ancient lists of towns are often in very irregular order. See on Judith 

 2:28 below, p. 55. 



