Joshua 16:8

The border went out from Tappuah westward unto the river Kanah; and the goings out thereof were at the sea. This is the inheritance of the tribe of the children of Ephraim by their families.

EXPOSITORY (ENGLISH BIBLE)

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

8. from Tappuah westward unto the river Kanah—It is retraced from east to west, to describe the prospective and intended boundary, which was to reach to the sea. Kanah ("reedy") flows into the Mediterranean.

Matthew Poole's Commentary

No text from Poole on this verse.

Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible

The border went out from Tappuah westward,.... Which was different from the Tappuah in the tribe of Judah, Joshua 15:34; this was in the tribe of Ephraim on the border of Manasseh, Joshua 17:8,

unto the river Kanah; supposed by some to be the brook Cherith, by which Elijah hid himself, 1 Kings 17:3; though objected to by others; it seems to have had its name from the reeds which grew in it, or on the banks of it:

and the goings out thereof were at the sea; if the river Kanah was the brook Cherith, this must be the dead or salt sea: but that is never called "the sea", rather the Mediterranean sea is meant, and consequently Kanah could not be Cherith, which was at too great a distance from this sea:

this is the inheritance of the tribe of the children of Ephraim by their families; that is, this is the description of the border of it; for the cities within are not mentioned, and the descriptions in general are very obscure.

Geneva Study Bible

The border went out from Tappuah westward unto the river Kanah; and the goings out thereof were at the sea. This is the inheritance of the tribe of the children of Ephraim by their families.

EXEGETICAL (ORIGINAL LANGUAGES)

Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

8. The border] In this verse the western half of the northern border is described.

from Tappuah] It ran from Tappuah, which has not yet been met with at all in the central district of Palestine, south of Shechem, “westward unto the river Kanah,” or rather “the brook of reeds.” This is probably the modern Nahr el Khassab, which reaches the Sea between Joppa and Cæsarea, under the name of Nahr Falaik, or as some think, the Nahr el Aujeh, just below the last-mentioned city.

Pulpit Commentary

Verse 8. - The border went out from Tappuah westward. This would seem to be a more minute description of the border line drawn from the sea to Michmethah above. Tappuah seems to have been near Mich-methah, and on the border (Joshua 17:8) of Manasseh. According to Knobel, Tappuah signifies plain, which is a little inconsistent with his idea that Michmethah, close by, was the watershed. Tappuah elsewhere signifies apple. Unto the river Trench. The winter-bound torrent Kanah, so named from its reeds and canes, formed the border between Ephraim and Manasseh. And the goings out (literally, extremities) thereof were at the sea This is the only possible interpretation of the passage, in spite of the obscurity caused by the same word being used for "sea" and "west." Joshua 16:8

Keil and Delitzsch Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament

The western half of the northern boundary went from Tappuah westwards to the Cane-brook, and terminated at the sea. Tappuah, called En-tappuah in Joshua 17:7, as the southern boundary of Manasseh, which is there described, and which ran from Michmethah to En-tappuah, coincides with the northern boundary of Ephraim, must not be identified with the royal town of that name mentioned in Joshua 12:17, and therefore was not Kefr Kud (Capercota), on the west of Jenin (Gina). This place was so far to the north, viz., seven hours to the north of Nabulus, that the boundary from Michmethah, in the neighbourhood of Shechem (Nabulus) onwards, would have run from south to north instead of in a westerly direction. Still less can En-tappuah be found, as Van de Velde supposes, in the old well of the deserted village of Atf, five hours to the east of Nabulus. It must have been to the west of Shechem; but it has not yet been discovered, as the country to the west of Nabulus and Sebastieh has "not been examined" (Van de Velde). The Cane-brook is no doubt the brook of that name mentioned by Bohad. (vita Salad. pp. 191, 193); only it is not quite clear "whether the Abu Zabura is intended, or a brook somewhat farther south, where there is still a Nahr el Kassab."