Joshua 16:5

And the border of the children of Ephraim according to their families was thus: even the border of their inheritance on the east side was Atarothaddar, unto Bethhoron the upper;

EXPOSITORY (ENGLISH BIBLE)

Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers

(5-8) The border (of Ephraim’s inheritance) on the east side.—The words “on the east side” are not easy to understand. If Ataroth-addar is rightly identified as Ed-Dârieh, and Mickmethah as the plain of Mukhnah, then the line from Ataroth-addar and Beth-horon to Michmethah is a line running due north, and separating the territory of Ephraim on the east from that of Dan on the west. The line from Michmethah to Taanath-shiloh (Tana, sheet 12) and Janohah (Yânûn, south of T’ana, sheet 15), and so to Jordan, is a line running from north-west to south-east. The brook Kanah is (roughly) continuous with this line, but in a westerly direction, and leads us towards the sea. We thus obtain for the territory of Ephraim four boundary-lines—viz.: (a) the plain of Jordan on the east; (b) the line of hills bordering the Shephelah on the west; (c) the brook Kanah, and the line passing through Taanath-shiloh and Janohah to Jordan on the north; and (d) the north border of Benjamin (Joshua 16:1-3, and Joshua 18:12-14) on the south.

Benson Commentary

Joshua 16:5. East side — That is, the north-east side. It is no wonder if some of these descriptions are dark to us at this distance of time; there having been so many alterations made in places, and so many circumstances being now altogether undiscoverable. But this is certain, that all the descriptions here mentioned were then evident to the Israelites, because these were the foundation of all the possessions which then they took, and peaceably possessed in succeeding ages.

Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary

16:20-63 Here is a list of the cities of Judah. But we do not here find Bethlehem, afterwards the city of David, and ennobled by the birth of our Lord Jesus in it. That city, which, at the best, was but little among the thousands of Judah, Mic 5:2, except that it was thus honoured, was now so little as not to be accounted one of the cities.

Barnes' Notes on the Bible

From the abrupt manner in which the statements are introduced, as well as from their imperfect character, there is probability in the conjecture that some words have, in these verses, fallen out of the text. Few of the places are known for certain.

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary

Jos 16:5-9. The Borders of the Inheritance of Ephraim.

5-9. the border of their inheritance … was Ataroth-addar—Ataroth-addar (now Atara), four miles south of Jetta [Robinson], is fixed on as a center, through which a line is drawn from Upper Beth-horon to Michmethah, showing the western limit of their actual possessions. The tract beyond that to the sea was still unconquered.

Matthew Poole's Commentary

On the east side, i.e. the north-east side. It is no wonder, if some of these descriptions are dark and doubtful to us at this distance of time and place; there having been so many alterations made in places, and so many circumstances being now altogether undiscoverable. But this is evident to every man of common sense, that this and all the descriptions here mentioned were then certain and evident to the Israelites, because these were the foundation of their present practice, and of all the possessions which then they took and peaceably possessed in succeeding ages.

Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible

And the border of the children of Ephraim, according to their families, was thus,.... Or what follows is the description of it:

even the border of their inheritance on the east side was Atarothaddar, unto Bethhoron the upper; the first was on the south of the inheritance, and the latter on the north, as Masius has placed them: who has given us a type of this description, by which it appears that this lot is here described in its breadth from south to north.

Geneva Study Bible

And the border of the children of Ephraim according to their families was thus: even the border of their inheritance on the east side was Atarothaddar, unto Bethhoron the upper;

EXEGETICAL (ORIGINAL LANGUAGES)

Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

5–10. The Inheritance of the Tribe of Ephraim

5. And the border] The border given is not traced out with the same completeness as that given above of the tribe of Judah. No mention, it will be observed, is made of the northern boundary line of the tribes descended from Joseph, although the eastern and western boundaries are implied, viz. the Jordan and the Mediterranean.

on the east side] It is to be borne in mind that the border traced above in Joshua 16:1-3 is here presupposed. The boundary is not drawn de novo, but is based upon the other.

Ataroth-addar] Comp. ch. Joshua 18:13. It is a little remarkable that the “Upper Beth-horon” is mentioned in this verse instead of Lower Beth-horon, as in Joshua 16:3. But both places were situated close to each other.

Pulpit Commentary

Verse 5. - The border of the children of Ephraim. The Hebrew word is translated indifferently by coast and border in our translation. The border of Joseph is very slightly traced out by the historian. It is difficult to give a reason for this fact, when we remember that Joseph, consisting as it did of the preponderating tribe of Ephraim, together with half the tribe of Manasseh, constituted by far the most important portion of Jewish territory. See, however, Introduction for the bearing of this fact on the authorship of the book. It is by no means easy to define the boundaries of the tribes; but, with the utmost deference to the authority of one so long engaged in the actual survey of the Holy Land as Mr. Conder, I feel unable to accept the maps he has given us in his 'Handbook' as an accurate account of them. Sometimes, perhaps, an eager attempt at the identification of certain places may lead astray those who are most familiar with their subject. But there are certain plain statements of the Book of Joshua which cannot be lightly set aside. Thus the extremity (תֹצְאֹת) of the border of Ephraim is distinctly stated in ver. 8 to be the sea. To translate "westward" would rob the expression תֹצאֹת of all meaning, even if ימה had not the article. Thus Dan can only have approached towards Joppa, but cannot have reached it. And it will be observed in Joshua 19:46, in accordance with this view, that the outgoings of the Danite border are not said to have been the sea. Next, it would seem that the Ataroth of ver. 2 (not of ver. 7) and Ataroth-addar are either the same place or close together, and that the present verse gives a small portion of the southeastern boundary as far as Beth-horon. Why the boundary is not traced out further ("the author only gives the western part of the southern border, and leaves out the eastern," Knobel) we cannot tell, but the natural translation of ver. 6 is, "and the western border ran to Michmethah on the north" (so Knobel). There was so small a portion of Ephraim on the sea that the line of the Wady Kanah in a northeasterly direction to Michmethah, near Shechem, might be called a western, as it certainly was a northwestern, border. Then the border deflected (נָסַב) and ran in a southwesterly direction to Jericho. Manasseh seems to have been bounded by Asher on the north and Issachar on the east, from the borders of Asher to Michmethah, and its western boundary the sea from the Wady Kanah to the neighbourhood of Dor. It seems impossible, with the distinct statement that Dor was in Asher (Joshua 17:11) - it could hardly have been in Issachar - and that Carmel was part of its western border (Joshua 19:26), to thrust a wedge of Zehulun between Manasseh and Asher, as Mr. Conder has done. The invention of an Asherham-Michmethah must not be allowed to set aside the plain statement (Joshua 17:10) that Manasseh impinged (פגע) upon Asher in a northerly direction - that is, was bounded on the north by that tribe. Then, as Asher was the northern, so it would seem from the passage just cited that Issachar was, as has been suggested, the eastern boundary, and that Issachar was bounded by the Jordan eastward, Manasseh westward, and by Ephraim to the southwest, and some distance further south than is usually supposed. Yet Joshua 17:11 must not he forgotten in fixing the boundary of Issachar (see note on Joshua 19:17-23). Its northern border, comprehending Jezreel, and bounded by Tabor, was thrust in between Zebulun and Naphtali. Tabor was evidently the border of these three tribes. It is with much diffidence that I venture to offer these suggestions, but they appear to have the sanction of the plain statements of the sacred writer. It would seem as though the comparative smallness of the territory assigned to Joseph led to the cession of some of the towns northward of the Wady Kanah by Manasseh to Ephraim, Manasseh receiving compensation by receiving Beth-shean, Ibleam, Dor, Endor, Taanach, and Megiddo from Issachar and Asher. The possession of Beth-shean by Manasseh may be due to the fact that the boundary of Manasseh ran along the chain of mountains bordering the great plain of Esdraelon, until it almost reached the Jordan. Additional reasons for entertaining these opinions will be given in the following notes. On the east side was Ataroth-addar. It is hardly possible to avoid the conclusion that a passage has been omitted here by the transcriber. If so, it must have been at a very early period, since the LXX. shows no sign of it, save that some copies add "and Gezer." But this is probably added from ver. 3, and is in no sense an eastern border. Joshua 16:5

Keil and Delitzsch Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament

Territory of the tribe of Ephraim, according to its families. - Joshua 16:5. "The border of their inheritance was from the east Atroth-addar and (along the line) to Upper Beth-horon," - a brief description of the southern boundary, which is more minutely described in Joshua 16:1-3. Upper Beth-horon is mentioned here instead of Lower Beth-horon (Joshua 16:3). This makes no difference, however, as the two places stood quite close to one another (see at Joshua 10:10). In Joshua 16:6-8 the northern boundary of Ephraim is given, namely, from the middle, or from "a central point near the watershed" (Knobel), first towards the east (Joshua 16:6 and Joshua 16:7), and then towards the west (Joshua 16:8). The eastern half of the northern boundary went ימּה, i.e., when regarded from the west, or looked at towards the west, to the north side of Michmethah. According to Joshua 17:7, this place was before Shechem, and therefore in any case it was not far from it, though it has not been discovered yet. Knobel supposes it to have been on the site of the present Kabate (Seetzen, ii. p. 166), Kubatiyeh, an hour and a half to the south of Jenin (Rob. iii. 154), assuming that Michmethah might also have been pronounced Chemathah, and that ב may have been substituted for מ. But Kabate is six hours to the north of Shechem, and therefore was certainly not "before Shechem" (Joshua 17:7). It then turned "eastward to Taanath-shiloh" (Τηαν̀θ Σηλώ, lxx), according to the Onom. (s. v. Thenath) ten Roman miles from Neapolis (Sichem), on the way to the Jordan, most probably the Thena of Ptol. (v. 16, 5), the present Tana, Ain Tana, a heap of ruins on the south-east of Nabulus, where there are large cisterns to be found (see Rob. Bibl. Res. p. 295; Ritter, Erdk. xv. p. 471). And "then went by on the east to Janoah" (i.e., Jano in Acrabittena regione, twelve Roman miles from Neapolis: Onom.), the present ruins of Jann, a miserable village, with extensive ruins of great antiquity, about three hours to the south-east of Nabulus, three-quarters of an hour to the north-east of Akrabeh (Rob. Bibl. Res. p. 297; Van de Velde, R. ii. p. 268).