Public Domain.
THE SETTLEMENT OF MANASSEH EAST OF
THE
By THE
REV. M. H. SEGAL, M. A.
I.
THE
chief source of our knowledge respecting the settlement of
Manassite clans on the east side of the
Numb. xxxii, 39-43. This passage relates that the children of
Machir the son of Manasseh went to
expelled its Amorite inhabitants; that Jair
the son of Manasseh
went and captured their villages which he named after himself,
and that Nobah went and captured Kenath with its dependent
124
THE SETTLEMENT OF MANASSEH EAST OF
towns and called it after his own name. These events are stated
to have taken place in the Mosaic age and before the conquest of
also in the following list of passages in the. Hexateuch: Numb. xxiv,
14, 15;
Deut. iii, 13-15; iv, 43; xxix, 7; Josh. 1, 12; xii, 6;
xiii, 29-31; xiv, 3; xvii, 1 sqq.; xviii, 7; xxii,
1 sqq., 7 sqq. In
spite of this long array of positive statements, modern criticism has
denied the Mosaic date of the Manassite
settlement east of the
scholars hold that the conquest of
was accomplished by a reflux of emigration from the western side
of the
have taken place "between the age of Deborah and that of the
‘Jahvist.’"1
The first question that suggests
itself is why our records should
have been so persistent in disguising the true character of this
alleged eastward movement of the Manassite
clans. In the case of
the Danite movement to the North the compilers of
our records
allowed the true tradition to survive (Judges xviii). What moved
the compilers to adopt a different attitude to the Manassite
move-
ment eastwards? The re-emigration theory
has no answer to this
question. Further, it cannot be said that this theory is in itself
more probable than the traditional account preserved in our
records. All historical considerations are against it. The flow of
immigration in
not from west to east. While it is reasonable to assume with our
records that, like Reuben and Gad and so many other Bedawi
tribes before and after them, a number of Manassite
clans, weary
with their long wanderings and precarious existence in the wilder-
ness, had striven to secure a settled home in the first hospitable
territory they could reach, it is difficult to believe that after a
long
sojourn in the more civilized west, these clans would have
emigrated
to the comparatively wild and rude districts of the east. We are
told that the cause of this supposed re-emigration from west to east
was the lack of room for the two tribes of Manasseh and Ephraim
in the single tribal territory which they had secured in the west,
and their inability to conquer more land from their Canaanite
neighbours. But we know that Manasseh was the
first-born of
1 Cf. Driver in Hasting’s Dictionary of the Bible, III, 232b,
with the
references in the note.
126 THE SETTLEIMENT Of
MANASSEH EAST OF
Joseph,
i.e., originally the dominant and more powerful tribe; and
that the Machirites were the most warlike members
of Manasseh
(cf.
Josh. xvii, 1). Is it likely that the Machirites
would have
given up voluntarily their fertile lands in the west to their less
powerful tribesmen, and wandered out in search of a new home in
the difficult country across the
Gadites have said to such an invasion of their territory by fellow-
Israelites? Would they not have met the Manassite
invaders with
the sane stout resistance with which the Gileadites
in Jephthah's
time met the invasion of the Ephraimites (Judges
xii, 4-6)? Finally,
the age of Deborah, subsequent to which this Manassite
re-emigra-
tion to the east is said to have taken
place, marked the final
triumph of
the Israelitish position west of the
that period powerful clans like the Machirites and
Jairites would
have felt compelled to retreat before the defeated Canaanites, and
to seek a new home in the distant parts across the
Nothing
but really strong and decisive evidence should induce us to
accept such an improbable theory. Let us see whether the evidence
adduced in favour of the re-emigration
theory is really of a decisive
character.
It is claimed that Numb. xxxii,
39-42, is a fragment which
originally formed part of an account of the conquest after the death
of Moses, like the account preserved in Judges i
(cf. Gray, Numbers,
p. 437 seq.). The fragmentary character of our passage is, indeed,
quite evident. Still there is no proof that the source from which
this fragment is derived had represented the conquest as having
taken place subsequent to the Mosaic age, and by emigrants from
the west. On the contrary, the wording of the passage seems to
support the view represented by our present records. If the writer
had believed the Machirites to have come from the
west he would
have used the expression vrbfyv, they passed over,” viz., the
he would have said rbfyv "he passed over," instead of jlyv, "he
went." In fact, it is not unlikely that the insertion of the fragment
was made by the author of the rest of the chapter. Verse 33 need
not be condemned as a late interpolation (Gray, op. cit., p. 432).
That
half Manasseh did not join Reuben and Gad in their negotia-
tions with Moses for the grant of the trans-Jordanic territory may
be explained by the different character of their respective positions.
THE SETTLEMENT OF MANASSEH
EAST OF
Reuben
and Gad asked for the transference to themselves as their
sole possession of territory which had been conquered by all
Manasseh,
on the other hand, did not ask, for the transference to
themselves of national property. The territory about which they
were concerned was already their own exclusive possession, because
it had been conquered by themselves, and without the aid of the
rest of
ratify their conquest, and give it national recognition, so that
they
might retain for all time its undisputed possession as their officially-
recognized tribal territory. This
recognition was granted by Moses,
as reported in vv. 33, 40; Deut. iii, 13-15.
It is further argued that the notice
of Jair the Gileadite in
Judges
x, 3-5, proves that the conquest reported in Numb. xxxii, 41,
must have taken place in the period of the Judges.1 But Judges x, 4,
does not say that the thirty sons of Jair the
Judge conquered the
Havvoth-Jair. It only states that to these sons belonged
the thirty
cities called Havvoth-Jair. This would rather seem to imply that
the actual conquest of the Havvorth-Jair had
taken place long before
the rise of Jair as Judge. If we grant the
identity of Jair the
Judge with Jair of Numb. xxxii, 41;
Deut. iii, 14. the statement in
Judges
3, 4, will then mean that for a certain period the clan of
Jair acquired a leading and authoritative position in
that the thirty members of this Jair clan occupied
the thirty cities
known as Havvoth-Jair. There is, however, nothing
in the passage
to indicate the actual period when the Havvoth-Jair first came into
the possession of the Jairites.
Again, it is argued from Judges v. 14 ("Out of Machir came
down governors"), that in the time of Deborah Machir
still dwelt
in the western side of the
in Num. xxxii, 40; Deut. iii, 15; Josh. xiii, 29-31, are unhistorical,
and that the Machirite settlement in
after the age of Deborah. Here again the evidence does not warrant
the conclusion drawn front it. There is nothing in the passage to
show that in the time of Deborah there were no Machirites
in
there were Machirites in the west which is quite a
different thing.
The
existence of Machirites in the west is conceded by
all our
1 Cf. Selbie in
128 THE
SETTLEMENT OF MANASSEH EAST OF
sources. Thus, according to Numb. xxvi, 29 (cf. also Gen. 1, 23),
Machir was the only son of Manasseh, and the Manassite
clans
were all descended from Machir. It follows,
therefore, that the
Manassites who dwelt west of the
But even
according to the genealogy in Josh. xvii, 1 sqq., where
Machir is only the firstborn of Manasseh, there were still Machirites
dwelling in the west beside the Machirite
settlement in
Zelophehad and his clans who are reckoned as descendants of Machir
(Josh.
xvii, 3-6), and Abiezer (Judges vi,
11 sqq.) who is no doubt
identical with Iezer, the son of
29, 30).
Finally, Josh. xvii, 14-18, is cited
as a proof that originally the
whole of Manasseh was settled in the west. In that passage the
children of Joseph complain that Joshua had given them only one
"lot," although they formed a numerous people. In reply
to this
complaint Joshua advises them to extend their territory by clearing
away the forest of the hill country. It is argued1 that if half
Manasseh
had already been settled in
Moses,
the Josephites would not have complained of having
received
but one portion in the west, since they also had a territory in the
east; and further that Joshua would have advised then to send to
this eastern territory those of their tribesmen who could not find a
home in the west. But there is not much force in this argument.
The
complaint of the Josephites is not that the tribes of
Manasseh
and Ephraim had altogether received but one “lot”; but rather
that Joshua had given them no more than one "lot" for all the
numerous people they had to provide for, namely in the west. As
regards Joshua's answer, it may be assumed that Joshua would
have been unwilling to advise the return of the superfluous popula-
lation to the east. Such an action would
have proclaimed both to
the Canaanites as well as to the Israelites the failure of the invasion,
and the inability of Joshua to redeem his promise of a home to all
the Israelites who had followed him across the
This is all the evidence which, as
far as we can gather, can be
produced in support of the re-emigration theory. It is obviously
quite inadequate to upset the repeated assertions of our records,
backed as they are by the important historical considerations
enumerated above.
1 Budde
in his Richter und Samuel, p. 33 sq.;
Gray, op. cit., p. 438.
THE SETTLEMENT OF MANASSEH EAST OF
II.
We may conclude this discussion with
a brief examination of
the interpretation which the re-emigration theory has led many
scholars to put upon the last-named passage in Josh. xvii, 14-18
This
interpretation is fully developed by Budde,1
who is followed
in the main by Holzinger, Bennett and Kautzsch in their commen-
taries on Joshua, and also by others. Budde holds that originally
this passage formed the, introduction to the narrative of the Manas-
site conquest of
reply to the Josephites' complaint of lack of
territory was that they
should go across the
anxious to remove the contradiction between this account and the
oft-repeated tradition of the Mosaic date of the Manassite
settlement
in
its parts, in order to conceal its true meaning, and make it say
something quite different from what it meant to say.
Now, it may be questioned whether we
have a right to impute
to an ancient author such an act of deliberate falsification of his
sources. Granted even that he was capable of such dishonesty,
would he have gone about it in such a clumsy, awkward fashion?
Who
forced him to introduce altogether this disjointed fragment in
his Book of Joshua? If he found the contents of the fragment
objectionable, why did he not leave it alone, and thus save himself
the task of re-writing it?
But apart from these general
considerations, it is clear that
Joshua's
words can only refer to a forest situated within the
western territory of the Josephites. The
expression "Get thee up
to the forest " (v. 15) only suits a situation where the persons
addressed are at the foot of the mountainous forest. If Joshua had
meant to say that the Josephites should go across
the
then up to the
himself more clearly by using the term "crossing over" (rbf).2
Further,
had Joshua meant that the Josephites should invade
the
woodland of
the Manassite clans are reported to have done in
Numb. xxxii, 39 sqq.,
1 Op. cit., pp. 32-39, 87; Judges,
p. 12 sq. Cf. also Gray, ibid.
2 Cf. Driver in Hasting's D.B.,
III, 231a.
130 THE SETTLEMENT OF MANASSEH EAST OF
he would have made some allusion to fighting the Amorites, say
vtwrvhv yrmxb tmHlnv. Joshua speaks merely of
clearing
away some jungle (vtxrbv, vv. 15, 18) which the Josephites
might
easily accomplish by the force of their large numbers and their
great physical strength.1 This proves conclusively that the forest
was already in the possession of the Josephites,
and that nothing
more was necessary than to reclaim it and make it fit for human
habitation.
Budde
argues that since the "hill country of Ephraim" is spoken
of in v. 15 as separate and distinct from the forest, therefore the
"hill country" in v. 18, which is said to consist wholly
of forest,
cannot be the hill country west of the
identical with the hill country of
that the term "hill country of Ephraim" is used in our passage to
comprise the whole mountainous district south of Jezreel.
But this
is by no means the case. It is true that in later times, when
Ephraim
had become predominant in
south of the Great Plain was often2 spoken of as "the hill
country
of Ephraim." but this could not have been the case in earlier
times when Ephraim was still considered the younger and less
important member of the House of Joseph. Thus, the term "hill
country of Ephraim" is used in this undoubtedly ancient
passage
to designate only a limited, probably the central, portion of the
western hill country. Further, v. 18 is not, as is often assumed, a
mere repetition of the advice given in v. 15. It introduces a new
and important fact in the clause "and the goings out thereof shall
be thine." Joshua tells the Josephites in v. 18 that if they cleared
away the forest as he advised them in v. 15, they would secure not
only the whole of the hill country, but also the "goings out
thereof,"
viz.,
the valley bordering on the forest, and world thus
have more
than one "lot." For the possession of the whole hill country,
including the reclaimed woodland, would enable them to prevail
against the Canaanites of the valley, in spite of their iron
chariots.
The text of the passage still
remains rather obscure in parts,
particularly in v. 18 with the awkward arrangement of its six short
1 Hk, v. 17.
This term is never used of military strength.
2 But not always; cf., for
example, Judges vii, 24; 1 Sam. ix, 4, etc. Simi-
larly the term "House of
Joseph," which here comprises the tribes of Ephraim
and Manasseh, was later extended to embrace all
xix, 21; Amos v, 6, 15; Zach. x, 6; also Ps. lxxx, 2.
THE SETTLEMENT OF MANASSEH EAST OF
clauses. Nevertheless, the general meaning is quite clear, and
there
is no need to resort to the violent changes proposed by Budde.
We may
summarize its contents as follows: (V. 14) The Josephites
complain that though they were a numerous people, yet Joshua had
given them but one "lot." (V. 15) Joshua replies that if they
were too numerous to find room in the hill country of Ephraim
in, the central portion of the mountainous district south of the
Plain of
Jezreel), they should go up farther north,1 and reclaim
the
wooded parts of the "hill country," (i.e., north of the
"hill country
of Ephraim"). (V. 16) The Josephites object
that even the whole
hill country thus cleared of the forest would not suffice for their
needs; and as for going still farther north of the hill country, viz.,
into the valley, they could not do it, owing to the possession of iron
chariots by the Canaanites. (V. 17) Joshua finally replies that
considering their numbers and strength for labour,
they should not
eventually have one "lot" only; (v. 18) for they could take
posses-
sion of the whole hill country by
clearing away the forest, and then
they would also secure the low country bordering on the forest
(the
goings out thereof"); for after they had reclaimed the wood-
land, they would be able to overcome the Canaanites in spite of
their iron chariots.
1 This does not necessarily imply
that the wooded harts of the hill country
were higher than the non-wooded parts.. The verb hlf, “to go up," is regularly
used of going to the north, and its converse dry, "to go down," of going to the
south. Cf. Numb. xiii, 22; 1 Sam. xxiii, 25; xxiv, 1; xxv,
1. See Ibn Ezra
on Gen. xxxviii. 1; Ex. xxxiii, 1.
Please
report any errors to Ted Hildebrandt at: