Charles Ellicott Commentary Judges 11:26

"While Israel dwelt in Heshbon and its towns, and in Aroer and its towns, and in all the cities that are along by the side of the Arnon, three hundred years; wherefore did ye not recover them within that time?" — Judges 11:26 (ASV)

While Israel dwelt in Heshbon. —See Numbers 21:25. This is an argument from undisputed possession.

In Aroer and her towns. —These had been assigned to the tribe of Gad (Numbers 32:34).

In all the cities that are along the coast of Arnon. —The Septuagint read Jordan.

Three hundred years. —There is an almost insurmountable difficulty in establishing any reasonable scheme of chronology, even by accepting this as a round number. This difficulty arises because it is hard to reconcile with the nine or ten genealogies that have been preserved, which represent the period between the conquest and David by seven or eight generations.

The period covered by these genealogies includes the judgeship of Samuel and the reign of Saul—at least seventy years—and seven or eight generations cannot possibly span 370 years.

The hypothesis that in all these genealogies—even the four times repeated genealogy of David—generations are always omitted is very improbable.

The chronology of the Jews is admittedly loose and uncertain, and it seems quite possible that “three hundred years” may be a marginal gloss that has crept into the text.

What makes this more probable is that the words not only create an immense chronological difficulty, but also:

1. Are quite unnecessary for Jephthah’s argument.
2. Actually conflict with the rest of the sentence, which refers to Balak alone. The argument is: If Balak, “at that time” (as the words should be translated), did not advance any claim, what right do you have to do so now?

If, however, in spite of these difficulties, the clause is genuine, and if there has not been one of the clerical errors that are so common where numerals are concerned, it seems possible that 300 years may be counted inclusively. For example, this could mean 100 full years since the death of Joshua and the nominal completion of the conquest of Canaan, with parts of a century before and after it.

Certainly, this is a recognized way of reckoning time among the Jews. For instance, if a king began to reign on December 30, 1879, and died on January 2, 1881, they would say that he had reigned three years.

Whatever explanations we may adopt, we have only conjecture to go on. (See Introduction.)

Within that time. —This is a mistranslation, likely due to the perplexity caused by the “three hundred years.” The Hebrew has “in that time,” that is, at that crisis. It was obvious, without needing special mention, that they had remained in possession ever since Balak’s day. In the most ancient times, it was acknowledged that the passage of time secured possession (Isocr. Ep. ad Aechid., p. 121; Tac. Ann. vi. 31).