(1) to represent themselves as fugitives, and

(2) to speak of Joshua as the "son of Nun."

He further remarks that, while the oldest genuine Phoenician inscription is not more than four hundred years before Christ, this, if genuine, must have been erected nearly a thousand years earlier still; and he further observes on the impossibility of its having been deciphered by the scholars of Justinian's day. The stow, no doubt, had its origin in the Rabbinical tradition, mentioned by Jarchi in his Commentary, as well as by Kimchi, that Joshua grote three letters to the Canaanites before invading Palestine: the first inviting them to make peace; the second, on their refusal, proclaiming war; the third, to those who feared the wrath of Jehovah, warning them to depart to Africa - advice which, Jarchi adds, was actually taken by a great many. Concerning these seven nations more will be found in the Introduction (see also Genesis 10:15-18; Genesis 15:19-21; Exodus 3:8, 17, dec.). That a Hebrew signification is found for Phoenician words need not surprise us. The descendants of Ham, when "dwelling in the tents of Shem," might have formed for themselves a similar language. But that the Aramaic, which was spoken throughout Syria and Palestine, was closely similar to the Hebrew, we have overwhelming evidence. Not only is there clear proof that Abraham and the Canaanites spoke the same language, not only are all the ancient names of places and persons of Hebrew origin, but even the Carthaginian language is pronounced by Jerome, a competent judge, to be cognate to the Hebrew (see Havernick, Introduction, see. 21). The Hittites. The Hittites (Hebrew, Chittim) were out of all proportion the principal tribe in Palestine at this time, as we have already seen (Joshua 1:4). They were the descendants of Heth or Chet (Genesis 10:15), who dwelt in the neighbourhood of Hebron in the days of Abraham (Genesis 23:19; Genesis 25:9). At that time they do not appear to have attained the importance which they afterwards reached (Genesis 12:6; Genesis 13:7; Genesis 34:30), though this is perhaps not altogether a safe inference (cf. Judges 1:4, 5). For the mention of the Canaanites in Genesis 12:6 without the Perizzite might lead to a similar inference with regard to the relative importance of these two tribes, whereas in the other two passages they appear on a level. Be this as it may, we find the Hittites occupying a prominent position in Canaan at this time, not only in the Book of Joshua, but on the Egyptian monuments, "Before the exodus the Kheta had become the terrible rivals of Egypt, and had mingled their genealogy with that of the renowned Pharaohs of the nineteeth dynasty" (Tomkins's 'Studies on the Times of Abraham,' p. 89). It is worthy of remark, however, that on the Egyptian monuments their leaders are spoken of as chieftains (see note on ch. 9:3, and 'Records of the Past,' 2:67-78). In later times they had attained to regal government (1 Kings 10:29; 2 Kings 7:6; 2 Chronicles 1:17). It is, however, possible that the proud monarch of Egypt would not admit the petty kings of the Hittites to an equality with himself (see also note on Joshua 1:4). Moses connects the Chittim (Numbers 24:24; Isaiah 23:1; Ezekiel 27:6), or the inhabitants of Cyprus, with the Hittites. Since these words were written an able article appeared in The Times of Jan. 23rd, 1880, on the Hittite Empire. Carchemish, on the Euphrates, and Kadesh, or the Holy City, on the Orontes, appear to have been the chief centres of the Hittite power. They were "powerful enough to threaten Assyria on the one hand and Egypt on the other, and to carry the arts and culture of the Euphrates to the Euxine and AEgean seas." Professor F. W. Newman, finding no mention of their existence in profane histories, came to the usual conclusion of his school, that where the Bible mentioned persons or nations and profane history did not, it was quite clear that such persons or nations never existed. The cases of Sargon and the Hittites may perhaps induce critics of this school to be a little less hasty henceforth in dismissing the statements of Scripture. The site of ancient Carchemish has lately been discovered on the western bank of the Euphrates. The Hivites, or rather Hivrites. The name of this tribe is not found in the first enumeration of the nations of Canaan (Genesis 15:19-21), but we find the name in the list of Canaan's descendants in Genesis 10:17 and 1 Chronicles 1:15. Shechem, the prince of the city of that name, was a Hivite (Genesis 34:2), though some copies of the LXX. read Horite for Hivite without authority. The Hivites then (Genesis 34:10-21) seem, as afterwards in the case of the Gibeonites, to have been a peaceful, commercial race. The character of the Shechemites afterwards seems to have been unwarlike. At least they were neither very spirited nor successful in their military enterprises, as the narrative in Judges 9. shows. The voluptuous beauty of the place, testified to by so many modern travellers, such as Robinson, Vandevelde, etc., falls in well with the character of the inhabitants. A colony of Hivites seem to have dwelt in the north, in the highlands beneath Mount Hermon, a country to which the name of Mizpeh, or watchtower, seems to have been given, no doubt from its elevation. This must not, however, be confounded with Mizpeh in the land of Benjamin (see Joshua 11:3). In 2 Samuel 24:7 they appear to have been found in the neighbourhood of Tyre, though this is by no means clear. The derivation of the word is uncertain. Ewald would explain it "midlander;" Gesenius explains it by "village," from הָוָה to live, breathe. That חַוָּה signifies a town or village we may learn from Numbers 32:41, Deuteronomy 3:14, Joshua 13:30, Judges 10:4, I Kings 4:13. The mention of their city so early as the time of Jacob, the description given of their character in that narrative, and the characteristic astuteness of the Gibeonites as well as their unwarlike conduct, would lead to the conclusion that they dwelt in settled habitations, not nomadic encampments, and that they gained their living chiefly by commerce. We ought not to quit the subject without the remark that all we learn from Scripture concerning the Hivites is remarkably consistent, and bears testimony to the scrupulous accuracy of the writers. The Perizzites. The word Perizzite signifies countryman, as distinguished from the dwellers in houses. Thus the word signifies "unwalled," or "open," in Deuteronomy 3:5, 1 Samuel 6:18, and in the Keri of Esther 9:19. Perhaps the reason of the omission of their name in Genesis 10. and 1 Chronicles 1. may justify the supposition that they were of no particular tribe, but were a collection of men from every tribe engaged in agricultural pursuits. Redslob (see art. in 'Dictionary of the Bible ') suggests that the Hawoth (Joshua 13:30) were pastoral, the Perazoth agricultural villages. This is to a certain extent borne out by the fact that Hawoth signifies "living places," and Perazoth" places spread out," as well as by the fact that the trans-Jordanic tribes were specially pastoral in their habits. Passages such as 2 Samuel 5:20; 2 Samuel 6:8; 1 Chronicles 14:11; Isaiah 28:21 are cited as illustrative of this word, but erroneously, for in the Hebrew the letter is Tzade, and not Zain, as here. Ritter regards the word as analogous to Pharisee, from pharash, to separate, and regards them as nomad tribes. But the authority of Ewald and Gesenius must outweigh his. The Girgashites. They are not mentioned in Scripture, save in Joshua 24:11, Genesis 15:21, Deuteronomy 7:1. They were therefore no doubt a small tribe, in. habiting, it has been supposed, the country of Gergesa or Gerasa (as some editions read in Matthew 8:28) upon the lake of Genne-sareth. But this was on the other side of Jordan. If therefore there be any connection between Gergesa or Gerasa and the Girgashites, there must have been a small settlement of them on the eastern side of the lake of Gennesareth. The Amorites. These were the most powerful of the Canaanitish peoples (see Amos 2:9). They not only inhabited the mountains (Numbers 13:29; Joshua 11:3), but crossed the Jordan and wrested the country from Arnon to Jabbok out of the hands of the Moabites (Numbers 21:13, 24, 26), and dwelt there until dispossessed by Moses. In Genesis 14:9 we find them west of Jordan, near Engedi, on the shores of the Dead Sea. Thence crossing Jordan they seem to have spread eastward. They are found in the Shephelah, on the borders of Dan (Judges 1:34), and even in the mountain district near Ajalon. But (ver. 35) they seem to have been driven out of Judah, and to have occupied a small portion of the Arabah south of the Dead Sea (cf. Joshua 15:3). Ewald, as well as Gesenius, regards the word Amorite as signifying highlander, and he quotes Isaiah 17:9, where Amir signifies the highest part of anything, as of a tree. So the Syriac Amori signifies a hero, and the Arabic Emir signifies a ruler. With this we may compare the term Ameer of Afghanistan, no doubt derived from a similar root. See also Isaiah 17:6, and the Hithpahel of אמר in Psalm 94:4, with the meaning to exalt one's self. Shechem, though a Hivite settlement, is spoken of by Jacob (Genesis 48:22) as an Amorite city, and in Joshua 10:6 the sovereigns of Jerusalem and the neighbour cities are spoken of as Amorite monarchs. This would suggest that the words applied to the inhabitants were to a great extent convertible terms, just as we apply the term Celt, Gael, Highlander indiscriminately to the inhabitants of the north of Scotland, Dutchman and Hollander to the inhabitants of Holland, and as Scotus and Erigena were both applied to Irishmen up to the 10th century. The Jebusites were in possession of the central highlands around Jerusalem, their stronghold. They retained possession of this until David dislodged them (2 Samuel 5:6-8. See note on Joshua 10:1).

Parallel Commentaries ...