chum,  author  of  the  celebrated  traditional  Midraah  (or
"exposition"),  says  that  this  notice  must  hepro^peetwe,
i.6.,  it  must  refer  to  a  time  subsequent  to  the  conquest  of
Jerusalem  mentioned  in  the  next  verse.  It  ma^,  how-
ever, merely  mean  that  they  kept  him  with  them  m  their
camp  when  they  advanced  to  the  siege  of  Jerusalem ;  or
the  "  they  "  may  refer  to  his  own  people.  The  Israelitea
may  have  contemptuously  spared  his  life,  and  suffered
him  to  join  his  own  people,  as  a  living  monument  of
Grod's  vengeance.  In  any  case  the  name  Jerusalem  is
used  by  anticipation,  for  it  seems  to  have  been  caUed
Jebus  till  the  days  of  David.  As  it  is  also  called
Jebusi  (i.e.,  "  the  Jebusite  ")  in  Josh.  xv.  8,  xviii.  16,
probably  the  name  of  the  town  comes  from  that  of
the  trible,  and  the  derivation  of  it  is  unknown.  The
meaning  "dry"  suggested  by  Ewald  is  very  uncertain.
(8)  lYow.— Bather,  And.
Had  fought  agaiost  Jerusalem,  •  and  had
taken  it.  —  Our  version  here  most  unwarrantably
interpolates  the  word  "  had,**  meaning  it  perhaps  as  a
sort  of  explanatory  gloss  to  imply  tnat  the  conquest
took  place  oef ore  the  fact  mentioned  in  the  last  verse.
If  WQ  are  right  in  supposing  that  these  chapters  refer
in  greater  or  less  detail  to  events  already  touched  npou
in  the  Book  of  Joshua,  we  must  then  supplement  thia
brief  notice  by  Josh.  xii.  8—10,  xv.  63,  irom  which  it
appears  that  though  the  people  of  Jerusalem  were
slaughtered,  the  king  conqueim,  and  the  city  burnt,
yet  the  Jebusites  either  secured  the  citadel  (as  Josephus
implies)  or  succeeded  in  recovering  the  city.  In  cbm^
xix.  11, 12,  the  city  is  called  Jebus  (with  the  remark..
