Deuteronomy 3:14

Archaeological Note. It begins with the last clause of Deuteronomy 3:13; see above. This reference of the conquest of Argob to Ya"îr contrasts with Deuteronomy 3:4, which assign it to Israel under Moses, and differs from Numbers 32:41, which places the Ḥawwôth-Ya"îr in Gilead; cp. 1 Kings 4:13, and 1 Chronicles 2:22, and as we have seen, on Deuteronomy 3:13, Ya"îr is assigned by Judges 10:3 ff. to the time of the Judges. The phrase unto this dayalso implies a date for this note later than that of Moses, which is assumed through the rest of the discourse. The opinion, therefore, is reasonable, that the note is a harmonising insertion altered from Numbers 32:41. Note the awkward construction. The word themin called them Ḥawwôth Ya"îr, confirmed by Sam. and LXX., has no proper antecedent (it cannot of course be explained by the preceding border), while in Numbers 32:41 it correctly refers to the preceding tent-villages. Note, too, the awkwardness of all Bashanas it stands. Moreover, the characteristic of Argob was not tent-villagesbut fenced cities(Deuteronomy 3:4). The Geshuriand Ma-akathiare placed by Joshua 12:5; Joshua 13:11 between Gile-ad and Ḥermon to the W. of Bashan; that is the mod. Jaulan (Gaulanitis), but the Ma- a kathi spread across Jordan N.W. to Abel-beth-Ma- a kah in Naphtali, 2 Samuel 20:14 f., etc. These two were Aramean (Genesis 22:24; 2 Samuel 15:8; 1 Chronicles 19:6); Israel failed to expel them (Joshua 13:3); David fought the king of Ma- a kah (2 Samuel 10:6, where the LXX Ἀμαλήκ is probably an error; the G e shur of 2 Samuel 3:3; 2 Samuel 13:37 f. may be another tribe of that name S. of Judah, Joshua 13:2; 1 Samuel 27:8); 1 Chronicles 2:33, where G e shur is said to have taken the Ḥ. Ja'ir, and Deuteronomy 19:6, are corrupt. Ḥawwoth, cp. Ar. ḥiwa-at"a collection of tents."