1 The lot came out for the children of Joseph from the Jordan at Jericho, at the waters of Jericho on the east, even the wilderness, going up from Jericho through the hill country to Bethel.
2 It went out from Bethel to Luz, and passed along to the border of the Archites to Ataroth;
3 and it went down westward to the border of the Japhletites, to the border of Beth Horon the lower, and on to Gezer; and ended at the sea.
4 The children of Joseph, Manasseh and Ephraim, took their inheritance.
5 This was the border of the children of Ephraim according to their families. The border of their inheritance eastward was Ataroth Addar, to Beth Horon the upper.
6 The border went out westward at Michmethath on the north. The border turned about eastward to Taanath Shiloh, and passed along it on the east of Janoah.
7 It went down from Janoah to Ataroth, to Naarah, reached to Jericho, and went out at the Jordan.
8 From Tappuah the border went along westward to the brook of Kanah; and ended at the sea. This is the inheritance of the tribe of the children of Ephraim according to their families;
9 together with the cities which were set apart for the children of Ephraim in the middle of the inheritance of the children of Manasseh, all the cities with their villages.
10 They didn’t drive out the Canaanites who lived in Gezer; but the Canaanites dwell in the territory of Ephraim to this day, and have become servants to do forced labor.
5 passages from writers of 2 traditions, in their own words, each with their dates and tradition. The site doesn’t say who is right: read them beside the verses. About these
Reading as
Questions they answer differently
On verse
Oldest first.
Josephus37–c. 100JewishAntiquities of the Jews · on Joshua 16:1–8The tribe of Ephraim had by lot the land that extended in length from the river Jordan to Gezer; but in breadth as far as from Bethel, till it ended at the Great Plain.
The tribe of Ephraim had by lot the land that extended in length from the river Jordan to Gezer; but in breadth as far as from Bethel, till it ended at the Great Plain.
Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Antiquities 5.1.22; translated by William Whiston (1737); the text of Project Gutenberg. The edition
A Jewish priest from Jerusalem who fought Rome in the war of 66–70 and afterwards wrote the history of his people for Greek readers.
John Calvin1509–1564ReformedCommentaries · on Joshua 16:1–9It is strange, however, that when the half of the tribe of Manasseh had already been settled beyond the Jordan, more words are employed in describing the remaining half than in describing the whole of the inheritance of the tribe of Ephraim, though the latter was the more populous, and justly claimed for itself a larger territory. But the longer detail given concerning the posterity of Manasseh is owing to particular circumstances. … Seeing, then, there was no doubt in regard to the boundaries of Ephraim, and there was no danger of dispute, their allocation is only briefly glanced at. But here a new question arises. When the right of primogeniture had passed from Manasseh to Ephraim, how did the posterity of that tribe which had precedence in rank obtain their cities among the children of Manasseh? … My explanation is this, When the portion of Manasseh was too extensive in proportion to the amount of population, a calculation was made, and certain cities were deducted to complete the just share of the tribe of Ephraim
It is strange, however, that when the half of the tribe of Manasseh had already been settled beyond the Jordan, more words are employed in describing the remaining half than in describing the whole of the inheritance of the tribe of Ephraim, though the latter was the more populous, and justly claimed for itself a larger territory. But the longer detail given concerning the posterity of Manasseh is owing to particular circumstances. … Seeing, then, there was no doubt in regard to the boundaries of Ephraim, and there was no danger of dispute, their allocation is only briefly glanced at. But here a new question arises. When the right of primogeniture had passed from Manasseh to Ephraim, how did the posterity of that tribe which had precedence in rank obtain their cities among the children of Manasseh? … My explanation is this, When the portion of Manasseh was too extensive in proportion to the amount of population, a calculation was made, and certain cities were deducted to complete the just share of the tribe of Ephraim
John Calvin, Commentaries, on 16:1–10; Calvin Translation Society (Edinburgh, 1843–1855); the text of the Free Use Bible API. The edition
The French reformer of Geneva, from whose teaching the Reformed and Presbyterian churches come.
Matthew Henry1662–1714English PresbyterianCommentary on the Whole Bible · on Joshua 16:1–9Their portion lay in the very heart of the land of Canaan. It extended from Jordan in the east (Jos 16:1) to the sea, the Mediterranean Sea, in the west, so that it took up the whole breadth of Canaan from side to side … The portions allotted to Ephraim and Manasseh are not so particularly described as those of the other tribes; we have only the limits and boundaries of them, not the particular cities in them, as before we had the cities of Judah and afterwards those of the other tribes. For this no reason can be assigned, unless we may suppose that Joshua being himself of the children of Joseph they referred it to him alone to distribute among them the several cities that lay within their lot, and therefore did not bring in the names of their cities to the great council of their princes who sat upon this affair, by which means it came to pass that they were not inserted with the rest in the books.
Their portion lay in the very heart of the land of Canaan. It extended from Jordan in the east (Jos 16:1) to the sea, the Mediterranean Sea, in the west, so that it took up the whole breadth of Canaan from side to side … The portions allotted to Ephraim and Manasseh are not so particularly described as those of the other tribes; we have only the limits and boundaries of them, not the particular cities in them, as before we had the cities of Judah and afterwards those of the other tribes. For this no reason can be assigned, unless we may suppose that Joshua being himself of the children of Joseph they referred it to him alone to distribute among them the several cities that lay within their lot, and therefore did not bring in the names of their cities to the great council of their princes who sat upon this affair, by which means it came to pass that they were not inserted with the rest in the books.
Matthew Henry, Commentary on the Whole Bible, on 16:1–4; 1706–1714; the text of the Free Use Bible API. The edition
An English Presbyterian minister whose commentary on the whole Bible Protestants have read for three centuries.
John Wesley1703–1791MethodistExplanatory Notes upon the Old Testament · on Joshua 16:5–8It 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 foundations of all the possessions which then they took, and peaceably possessed in succeeding ages.
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 foundations of all the possessions which then they took, and peaceably possessed in succeeding ages.
John Wesley, Explanatory Notes upon the Old Testament, on 16:5; Bristol, 1765. The edition
The Anglican priest who began the Methodist movement; his notes on the Bible were written for ordinary readers.
Adam Clarkec. 1760–1832MethodistCommentary on the Holy Bible · on Joshua 16:10It appears that the Canaanites were not expelled from this city till the days of Solomon, when it was taken by the king of Egypt his father-in-law, who made it a present to his daughter, Solomon's queen. See Kg1 9:16. … The Ephraimites, however, had so far succeeded in subjecting these people as to oblige them to pay tribute, though they could not, or at least did not, totally expel them.
It appears that the Canaanites were not expelled from this city till the days of Solomon, when it was taken by the king of Egypt his father-in-law, who made it a present to his daughter, Solomon's queen. See Kg1 9:16. … The Ephraimites, however, had so far succeeded in subjecting these people as to oblige them to pay tribute, though they could not, or at least did not, totally expel them.
Adam Clarke, Commentary on the Holy Bible, on 16:10; 1810–1826; the text of the Free Use Bible API. The edition
A Methodist preacher and scholar from Ulster, whose commentary on the whole Bible took him nearly forty years.
Joshua 16
Joshua 16:1–10, World English Bible
Joshua 16 in the Bible · Told in the Story: Chapter 7, Dividing the Land
What others have written
5 passages from writers of 2 traditions, in their own words, each with their dates and tradition. The site doesn’t say who is right: read them beside the verses. About these
Oldest first.
Josephus37–c. 100JewishAntiquities of the Jews · on Joshua 16:1–8The tribe of Ephraim had by lot the land that extended in length from the river Jordan to Gezer; but in breadth as far as from Bethel, till it ended at the Great Plain.
Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Antiquities 5.1.22; translated by William Whiston (1737); the text of Project Gutenberg. The edition
A Jewish priest from Jerusalem who fought Rome in the war of 66–70 and afterwards wrote the history of his people for Greek readers.
John Calvin1509–1564ReformedCommentaries · on Joshua 16:1–9It is strange, however, that when the half of the tribe of Manasseh had already been settled beyond the Jordan, more words are employed in describing the remaining half than in describing the whole of the inheritance of the tribe of Ephraim, though the latter was the more populous, and justly claimed for itself a larger territory. But the longer detail given concerning the posterity of Manasseh is owing to particular circumstances. … Seeing, then, there was no doubt in regard to the boundaries of Ephraim, and there was no danger of dispute, their allocation is only briefly glanced at. But here a new question arises. When the right of primogeniture had passed from Manasseh to Ephraim, how did the posterity of that tribe which had precedence in rank obtain their cities among the children of Manasseh? … My explanation is this, When the portion of Manasseh was too extensive in proportion to the amount of population, a calculation was made, and certain cities were deducted to complete the just share of the tribe of Ephraim
John Calvin, Commentaries, on 16:1–10; Calvin Translation Society (Edinburgh, 1843–1855); the text of the Free Use Bible API. The edition
The French reformer of Geneva, from whose teaching the Reformed and Presbyterian churches come.
Matthew Henry1662–1714English PresbyterianCommentary on the Whole Bible · on Joshua 16:1–9Their portion lay in the very heart of the land of Canaan. It extended from Jordan in the east (Jos 16:1) to the sea, the Mediterranean Sea, in the west, so that it took up the whole breadth of Canaan from side to side … The portions allotted to Ephraim and Manasseh are not so particularly described as those of the other tribes; we have only the limits and boundaries of them, not the particular cities in them, as before we had the cities of Judah and afterwards those of the other tribes. For this no reason can be assigned, unless we may suppose that Joshua being himself of the children of Joseph they referred it to him alone to distribute among them the several cities that lay within their lot, and therefore did not bring in the names of their cities to the great council of their princes who sat upon this affair, by which means it came to pass that they were not inserted with the rest in the books.
Matthew Henry, Commentary on the Whole Bible, on 16:1–4; 1706–1714; the text of the Free Use Bible API. The edition
An English Presbyterian minister whose commentary on the whole Bible Protestants have read for three centuries.
John Wesley1703–1791MethodistExplanatory Notes upon the Old Testament · on Joshua 16:5–8It 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 foundations of all the possessions which then they took, and peaceably possessed in succeeding ages.
John Wesley, Explanatory Notes upon the Old Testament, on 16:5; Bristol, 1765. The edition
The Anglican priest who began the Methodist movement; his notes on the Bible were written for ordinary readers.
Adam Clarkec. 1760–1832MethodistCommentary on the Holy Bible · on Joshua 16:10It appears that the Canaanites were not expelled from this city till the days of Solomon, when it was taken by the king of Egypt his father-in-law, who made it a present to his daughter, Solomon's queen. See Kg1 9:16. … The Ephraimites, however, had so far succeeded in subjecting these people as to oblige them to pay tribute, though they could not, or at least did not, totally expel them.
Adam Clarke, Commentary on the Holy Bible, on 16:10; 1810–1826; the text of the Free Use Bible API. The edition
A Methodist preacher and scholar from Ulster, whose commentary on the whole Bible took him nearly forty years.