Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Joshua 19:41
And the coast of their inheritance was Zorah, and Eshtaol, and Ir-shemesh,
41. And the coast ] allotted to the tribe, in spite of the numbers just mentioned, was the smallest of all. Compressed into the narrow space between the north-western hills of Judah and the Mediterranean, it was surrounded by the three most powerful tribes of the whole confederacy, Ephraim and Benjamin on the north and east, Judah on the south and south-east.
was Zorah ] Observe that the boundaries of this tribe are not defined. They naturally follow from those of Judah, Ephraim, and Benjamin.
Zorah, and Eshtaol ] See above, ch. Jos 15:33. For Ir-shemesh = Beth-shemesh = modern ’Ain-Shems, see above, ch. Jos 15:10.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Verse 41. Zorah, and Eshtaol] See Clarke on Jos 15:33.
Ir-shemesh] The city of sun; another proof of the idolatry of the Canaanites. Some think this was the same as Beth-shemesh.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Their inheritance; which is here described only by its cities, not by its borders, which are in part the same with Judahs; and their inheritance is in good part taken out of Judahs too large portion, as appears from divers of the cities here mentioned, which are also reckoned as in Judahs portion.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
And the coast of their inheritance was Zorah, and Eshtaol,…. The tribe of Dan is not described by places the boundaries of it, as other tribes, but by its cities, which were chiefly, at least several of them, taken out of the tribe of Judah, as the two first of these most manifestly were; [See comments on Jos 15:33];
and Irshemesh signifies the city of the sun, as the Targum interprets it, and was so called very probably from a temple in it, dedicated to the idolatrous worship of the sun, but a different place from Bethshemesh in other tribes; though those of that name, as this, had it for the like reason; and so Heliopolis, in Egypt, which signifies the same, where was a temple of the same kind; as there was another city of this name, between the mountains of Libanus and Antilibanus, now called Balbec p, where the ruins of the temple are yet to be seen: but this was a different place, the Septuagint version calls it Sammaus, and it was, according to Jerom q, the same with Emmaus, afterwards called Nicopolis; which, if the same Emmaus with that in Lu 24:13; though some doubt it, was sixty furlongs from Jerusalem, or seven miles and a half.
p See Maundrell’s Journey from Aleppo, &c. p. 120, 138. q Comment. in Ezek. xlviii. fol. 263. A.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
(41) And the coast . . .Zorah and Eshtaol, in the tribe of Dan, had been originally assigned to Judah (Jos. 15:33); so also Ekron. But it is not clear whether they are mentioned here as marking the border of Dan and Judah, or actually in the territory of the former. However, Dan is wedged in, as it were, between the powerful tribes of Judah and Ephraim, the unconquered Philistines, and the sea. It is not surprising that their coast went out from them (Jos. 19:47) when it was partly unconquered, partly taken from other tribes in the first instance. Conder says it was carved out of the country of Ephraim.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
(41-46) All the towns mentioned here are identified by Conder.
ZorahSurah
EshtaolEsha
Ir-shemeshAin Sheme ShaalabbinSelbt
AjalonYlo
Jethlah(Ruin) Beit Tul
}
Are all in sheet 17
ElonBeit Ello
Thimnathah(Ruin) Tibneh
}
Sheet 14
Ekron-(akir, sheet 16)
{
Gibbethon–(Kibbiah, sheet 14)
Baalath(Belan, sheet 14)
JehudEl-Yehudyeh
Bene-berakIbn Ibrak
}
Sheet 13
For Gath-rimmon, Conder suggests Gath; but this he identifies with Tell-es-Safi, which is well within the territory of Judah (to the south of sheet 16).
Me-jarkon, the yellow water, is thought to be the river Aujeh (sheet 13), and Rakkon, Tell-er-Rakkeit, to the north of the mouth of it. Japho is Jaffa, on the same sheet.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
41. Zorah, and Eshtaol These cities were originally allotted to Judah, (see Jos 15:33,) and so also were other cities of this list. But the original allotment being found too large for Judah, the southwestern portion was given to Simeon, (Jos 19:1-9,) and a part of the northwestern to Dan. Ir-shemesh is supposed to be the same as Beth-shemesh in Jos 15:10.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘ And the border of their inheritance was Zorah, and Eshtaol, and Ir-shemesh, and Shaalabbin, and Aijalon, and Ithlah, and Elon, and Thimnathah, and Ekron, and Eltekeh, and Gibbethon, and Baalath, and Jehud, and Bene-berak, and Gath-rimmon, and Me-jarkon, and Rakkon, with the border over against Japho.’
Zorah and Eshtaol were on the Danite border (compare Jos 15:33; see also Jdg 13:25; Jdg 18:2; Jdg 18:8; Jdg 18:11). Judah and Dan shared them and their related lands, Dan the land to the north, Judah the land to the south, or it may be that after receiving their lot Judah passed the cities on to Dan as having too much. But the probability is that they were settled by both, some looking to Dan and some to Judah. Zorah was mentioned in the Amarna letters as Zarkha and is probably Sar‘a, a Canaanite city twenty five kilometres (fifteen miles) west of Jerusalem, on the north side of the Wadi al-Sarar (the valley of Sorek), with Eshtaol close by. Both places overlook the broad basin of the Wadi, near its entrance into the Judaean highlands.
“Ir-shemesh, and Shaalabbin, and Aijalon.” Ir-shemesh means ‘city of Shemesh (of the sun)’. Some Hebrew MSS have En-shemesh (‘spring of Shemesh’). Names compounded with the god Shemesh were common so its direct connection with Beth-shemesh (on the Danite/Judah border, see Jos 15:10) is uncertain, but they were certainly near neighbours. Shaalabbin, a non-Semitic name, probably the Shaalbim (which may mean ‘haunt of foxes’) in Jdg 1:35; 1Ki 4:9 compare 2Sa 23:32 near Mount Heres, (an ancient word for sun). It has been connected with Salbit, five kilometres (three miles) north west of Yalo, although the names do not agree phonetically. Inhabited by the Amorites in the valley of Aijalon it withstood Danite pressure but eventually became tributary to Joseph (Ephraim and Manasseh). The same was true of Aijalon. Aijalon (modern Yalo) was on a hill and commanded from the south the entrance to the valley of Aijalon about eleven kilometres (six or seven miles) from Gezer. It later guarded the north west approach to Jerusalem.
“And Ithlah, and Elon, and Thimnathah, and Ekron.” Ithlah is unknown.Elon is possibly Khirbet Wadi ‘Alin, two kilometres east of Bethshemesh. Compare 1Ki 4:9. The name means ‘terebinth’ or ‘oak’. Thimnathah is probably Timnah (Timnath, Thimnathah) which was where Samson sought a Philistine wife. This may be the Tamna later mentioned in the annals of Sennacherib (c. 701 BC). It is probably Tell Batashi, nine kilometres (six miles) south of Gezer, although its name is preserved by Khirbet Tibneh. It was a border town of Judah (Jos 15:10). Whether shared or merely a border marker we do not know. Ekron (see on Jos 15:45) was one of the five major Philistine cities on the border of both Judah and Dan. It may have been occupied by Judah as a small village on a mound before the Philistines arrived, but from then on it was built up by the Philistines as a Philistine enclave.
“And Eltekeh, and Gibbethon, and Baalath, and Jehud, and Bene-berak.” Eltekeh (see Jos 21:23) is named by Sennacherib (Altaku) together with Timna among his conquests in his annals for 701/700BC. It may be Tell-esh-Shalaf, sixteen kilometres (ten miles) north east of Ashdod (Khirbet el-Muqanna‘ is now thought to be Ekron). Gibbethon (see Jos 21:23) is probably Tell el-Mellat, west of Gezer. It was in Philistine hands for some time and was the scene of battles between them and Israel (1Ki 15:27). Baalath is possibly el-Mughar. It was fortified by Solomon (1Ki 9:18). Jehud has been thought to be el-Yehudiyeh on the plain between Joppa and the hills. Bene-berak is identified with modern el-Kheiriyeh (Ibn Ibraq), six kilometres (four miles) east of Joppa. According to Sennacherib it was one of the cities belonging to Ashkelon besieged and taken by him (Benebarka). Thus it was then in Philistine hands.
“And Gath-rimmon, and Me-jarkon, and Rakkon, with the border over against Japho (Joppa).” Gath-rimmon (‘winepress of Rimmon’) is possibly Tell Jarisheh on the River Yarkon. Me-yarkon and Rakkon are unknown, but the former also connected with the Yarkon. The final city on the border is Joppa. Joppa was the only major harbour between Acco and the Egyptian border, and controlled by the Philistines. Excavation shows occupation from 17th century BC, and a pre-Philistine temple of the 13th Century BC witnesses to the existence of a lion cult. The temple has wooden columns on stone bases to support the ceiling (compare Jdg 16:25-27). ‘Over against’ may indicate that Joppa was a border marker and not actually part of their territory.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Zorah: Situated on the frontiers of Dan and Judah, tens miles north from Eleutheropolis, towards Nicoplis, according to Eusebius, not far from Caphar Sorek. Jos 15:33, Zoreah, Jdg 13:2, Jdg 13:25, Jdg 16:31, Jdg 18:2, 1Ch 2:53, 2Ch 11:10
Irshemesh: Supposed by some to be the same as Beth-shemesh in the tribe of Judah; but this latter city is evidently distinguished from it by being assigned by the tribe of Judah to the Levites – Jos 21:16. Ir-shemesh rendered by the LXX, seems to be the same as Emmaus or Nicopolis, 22 miles south-east from Lydda, according to the Old Jerusalem Itinerary.
Reciprocal: Num 34:17 – are the names Neh 11:29 – Zareah