Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Judges 11:26
While Israel dwelt in Heshbon and her towns, and in Aroer and her towns, and in all the cities that [be] along by the coasts of Arnon, three hundred years? why therefore did ye not recover [them] within that time?
26. While Israel dwelt ] Rather When I. settled. For her towns see on Jdg 1:27.
Aroer Arnon ] The LXX reads Jazer (cod. A) Jordan (so Vulgate), which looks like the original text. Jazer lay on the Ammonite border, Num 21:24 (LXX), 32, 2Sa 24:5, and is associated with Heshbon in Jos 21:39; it suits the present context better than Aroer (now ‘Ar‘ir) in the extreme S. of Moab. Moreover, since ‘Aroer and her towns’ were situated on the north side of the Arnon, the words which follow in the present text, ‘and in all the cities that are along by the side of Arnon,’ add nothing to the description; Jordan gives us exactly what is wanted.
three hundred years ] The total number of years assigned to the oppressions and to the periods of the Judges in the preceding chapters comes to 319, or, omitting the Ammonite oppression, to 301. The round number 300 seems, therefore, to be calculated upon the basis of the chronological scheme introduced into the book by the editor of the framework. Thus three hundred years must have been inserted into the narrative, to the disturbance of the proper sense of the clause which follows: within that time is an incorrect rendering; the words mean at that time (cf. Jdg 3:29, Jdg 4:4, Jdg 12:6 etc.), i.e. when Israel settled in Heshbon.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Three hundred years; not precisely, but about that time; either from their coming out of Egypt, or from their first conquest of those lands; and thus numbers are oft expressed: see Num 1:46; 2:32; 11:21; Jdg 20:46. He urgeth prescription, which is by all men reckoned a just title, and it is fit it should be so for the good of the world, because otherwise the door would be opened both to kings and to private persons for infinite contentions and confusions.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
While Israel dwelt in Heshbon and her towns,…. This was the principal city, which formerly belonged to the Moabites, and was taken from them by Sihon; who being conquered by Israel, it fell into their hands, and they inhabited it, and the towns adjacent to it, from that time to the present; see Nu 21:25
and in Aroer and her towns; another city with its villages, taken at the same time, and ever since inhabited by the Israelites, even by the tribe of Gad, who rebuilt it; it lay near the river Arnon; see
Nu 32:34
and in all the cities that be along by the coasts of Arnon; which lay along by the side of that river, which divided Moab from the kingdom of the Amorites; these Israel had dwelt in three hundred years; and during this time, neither Balak king of Moab, nor any of his successors, had ever disputed Israel’s title to those cities, or commenced a war with them on account of them; but they had continued in the peaceable enjoyment of them so long as three hundred years; which are thus reckoned in the Jewish chronology z; Joshua governed Israel twenty eight years, Othniel forty, Ehud eighty, Deborah forty, Gideon forty, Abimelech three, Tola twenty three, Jair twenty two, and eighteen years Israel was oppressed by the children of Ammon, which with the six years of Jephthah make just three hundred; so that, according to this computation, there were six years short of it; but being so near, the round number is given:
why therefore did ye not recover them within that time? signifying they ought to have put in their claim sooner, and endeavoured to have recovered them long before this time, if they had any right unto them; wherefore Jephthah pleads prescription, and which in a course of time ought to take place; or otherwise the world would be full of endless contentions and controversies, and kingdoms and states would never be at peace, nor each one know and enjoy for certainty its proper domains.
z Seder Olam Rabba, c. 12. Vid. Jarchium & Kimchium in loc.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
(26) While Israel dwelt in Heshbon.See Num. 21:25. This is an argument from undisputed possession.
In Aroer and her towns.These had been assigned to the tribe of Gad (Num. 32:34).
In all the cities that be along by the coast of Arnon.The LXX. read Jordan.
Three hundred years.There is an almost insuperable difficulty in making out any reasonable scheme of chronology even by accepting this as a round number, because it is difficult to reconcile with nine or ten genealogies which have been preserved to us, and which represent the period between the conquest and David by seven or eight generations. Now the period covered by these genealogies includes the judgeship of Samuel and the reign of Saulat least seventy years; and seven or eight generations cannot possibly span 370 years. The hypothesis that in all these genealogieseven the four times repeated genealogy of Davidgenerations are always omitted is very improbable. The chronology of the Jews is confessedly loose and uncertain, and it seems quite possible that three hundred years may be a marginal gloss which has crept into the text. What makes this more probable is that the words not only create an immense chronological difficulty, but (1) are quite needless to Jephthahs argument, and (2) actually conflict with the rest of the sentence, which refers to Balak alone; the argument being, If Balak, at that time (as the words should be rendered), did not advance any claim, what right have you to do so now? If, however, in spite of these difficulties, the clause be genuine, and if there has not been one of the clerical errors which are so common where numerals are concerned, it seems possible that 300 years may be counted inclusively, e.g., 100 full years since the death of Joshua and nominal completion of the conquest of Canaan, with parts of a century before and after it. Certainly this is a recognised mode of reckoning time among the Jews. For instance, if a king began to reign on December 30, 1879, and died on January 2, 1881, they would say that he had reigned three years. Whatever explanations we may adopt, there is nothing but conjecture to go upon. (See Introduction.)
Within that time.This is a mistranslation, due probably to the perplexity caused by the three hundred years. The Hebrew has in that time, i.e., at that crisis. It was obvious, without special mention, that they had remained in possession ever since Balaks day, and in the most ancient times it was admitted that lapse of time secured possession (Isocr. Ep. ad Aechid., p. 121; Tac. Ann. vi. 31).
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
26. Three hundred years This of all others was the most overwhelming refutation of Ammon’s claims. The peaceful possession of a country for such a period was of itself an all-sufficient title to possession a “statute of limitations:” “for,” says Le Clerc, “if there be no rule respecting time, and long possession is of no value, nothing could ever be safely possessed by any people, nor would there ever be an end of wars and dissensions.”
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
“ While Israel dwelt in Heshbon and her towns, and in Aroer and her towns, and in all the cities that are along by the side of Arnon for three hundred years, why did you not recover them within that time?”
Indeed since then Israel had occupied the cities of the area, even those on the very borders of Moab, for ‘three hundred years’. And there had been no attempt at any time to claim even those cities along the border of the Arnon as theirs, never mind the capital Heshbon itself. Why, if these towns really belonged to Chemosh and Moab, had they not recovered them previously? Thus they had clearly not seen it in the way the king of Ammon did now.
The ‘three hundred years’ means a long period of time going back into the distant past. Three indicates completeness and the hundreds indicate a long period. It is doubtful if it was intended literally. It was a generalisation. No one would have kept a record of the number of years. We know of no official recorder in Israel until the time of David.
But even if taken literally, by ancient reckoning it need represent only about one hundred and fifty years, each ‘century’ being dated from one well known occurrence to another, for a part of one hundred would have been treated as ‘one hundred’. We must remember that there was no continual, carefully worked out calendar. Years were dated backward or forward from outstanding events (e.g. Amo 1:1) or from the accession of kings.
“Heshbon.” Tel Hesban, which has been mooted as Heshbon, had no remains dating back as far as the time of Sihon, although there are remains dating back to this time. Sihon’s Heshbon was thus probably one of the nearby mounds yet to be excavated. ‘Aroer.’ This is probably modern ‘Ara‘ir overlooking the deep gorge of the River Arnon (compare Num 32:34). It was later fortified by Mesha, king of Moab as witnessed on the Moabite stone, ‘he built Aroer and made the road by the Arnon’.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Jdg 11:26 While Israel dwelt in Heshbon and her towns, and in Aroer and her towns, and in all the cities that [be] along by the coasts of Arnon, three hundred years? why therefore did ye not recover [them] within that time?
Ver. 26. Three hundred years. ] So he calleth the time for a round number, making the most of it, now that he pleadeth prescription.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
three hundred years. Not a “round number”. See App-50.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Heshbon: Num 21:25-30, Deu 2:24, Deu 3:2, Deu 3:6, Jos 12:2, Jos 12:5, Jos 13:10
Aroer: Deu 2:36
three hundred: Jdg 3:11, Jdg 3:30, Jdg 5:31, Jdg 8:28, Jdg 9:22, Jdg 10:2, Jdg 10:3, Jdg 10:8, Jos 11:18, Jos 23:1
Reciprocal: Num 32:3 – Heshbon 1Ki 6:1 – And it came
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Jdg 11:26. Three hundred years Not precisely, but about that time, either from their coming out of Egypt, or from their first conquest of those lands. Here he pleads prescription, which by all men is reckoned a just title, and it is fit it should be so, for the good of the world; because otherwise a door would be opened both to kings and private persons for infinite contentions and confusions. And the prescription he pleads was for a long space of time, during which none of the kings of Moab or Ammon had pretended a right to this country, much less contested it with them. Wherefore did ye not recover them within that time? No answer could be given to this question, why, in so long a time, they never asserted their claim till now.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
11:26 While Israel dwelt in Heshbon and her towns, and in Aroer and her towns, and in all the cities that [be] along by the coasts of Arnon, three hundred years? why therefore did ye not recover {i} [them] within that time?
(i) Meaning their towns.