during the present century, Jost, Ewald, Hitzig and Dean Milman may be mentioned as believing in the literal fulfilment of Jephthah's vow. A passage in the notes on the Douay Bible (ed. 1609) may be interesting for its casuistry, based on the general opinion of the Fathers. It states that Jephthah did wrong to vow, but would have done worse had he not fulfilled his vow. And it comments with some severity upon the remarks of a "new glosser of the English Bible," who said that by Jephthah's "rash vow and wicked performance his victory was defaced," and that he was 66 overcome with blind zeal, not considering whether th vow was lawful or no." The allusion is to the Geneva Version, published in 1560. NOTE IV. THE PHYSICAL features oF PALESTINE AS ILLUSTRATING THE HISTORY. It will be observed that the Israelites, after their occupation of Palestine, were chiefly a mountainous people. In the north, Tyre and Sidon, and in the south, Gaza and Ascalon, belonged to their enemies, and if reduced at all, were never permanently reduced. Dan and Asher appear to be the only tribes which devoted themselves to maritime enterprises, and the latter tribe largely availed itself of the assistance of the tributary Canaanites (ch. i. 31, 32). It has been conjectured (see Jost, Geschichte des Israelitischen Volkes, 1. 195) that agriculture in general flourished chiefly in the north, while Judah, with a less promising soil, reared at a greater expenditure of labour, corn, wine and oil. The smooth downs on the eastern side of the Jordan (known as the Mishor) were suited for cattle. Perhaps the cause which led to the eventual preponderance of Judah-for secondary causes need not be altogether left out of the account-was the fact that (1) the for the most part chalky and sterile soil needed careful terracing and irrigation (see note on Negeb, ch. i. 15), and that this tribe was inured to war by its constant conflicts with the Philistines, the most warlike race which inhabited Palestine. Thus it probably escaped to a great extent the calamities that fell on the rest of Israel, and having its hands fully occupied, held itself excused from taking any share in the conflicts of the remaining tribes-a selfish policy which ended in its complete subjugation by the Philistines. This peculiar situation of the Israelites subserved a Divine purpose. Shut out by the Phoenician and Philistine cities from the sea coast, its own seaport towns left chiefly in the hands of their Phoenician inhabitants, cut off moreover by a wide tract of sterile land from the great highways of commerce in the East, the Israelites led an isolated life. This isolation was further increased by the disruption of the kingdom, and the consequent restriction of the Mosaic polity to the southern and more insignificant portion. Thus the influence of the Law was confined, as it was intended to be confined, to one people, until the time came when the "middle wall of partition" was to be broken down, and when, its scope enlarged, the preparatory dispensation should merge into one better adapted to the needs of humanity. The physical features of the country serve to explain the history in one other respect. They render intelligible the narrative of the hostilities at Gibeah. The unresisting slaughter of so vast a host by so small a body would be inexplicable, as well as the selection of one particular tribe for the attack, did we not remember that the Israelites were evidently (see note on ch. iv. 3) but scantily provided with the appliances of war, and that the country to the immediate north of Jerusalem was precipitous, and therefore placed the attacking party at an immense disadvantage. The only means, either at Ai or Gibeah, of capturing the city was by drawing the defenders away from their vantage ground by a feigned flight. This circumstance may assist the explorer in identifying Gibeah, the site of which has not been positively ascertained, since Lieut. Conder, the latest authority, is at issue with Canon Tristram and earlier explorers in fixing it at Tuleil el Ful. That it was a town is clear from ch. xix. 15. That it was not Geba, though it is called so more than once in the sacred narrative, appears from Josephus' account of its distance from Jerusalem, as well as from the whole course of the narrative, which forbids us to suppose that it could have been more than a very short distance from Jerusalem. Lastly, it must have been in a ravine or on a rock, where the slings of the Benjamites could be used with good effect upon the helpless masses of their opponents. |