The Fallible · Synthetic · Study Bible
Asher’s Inheritance
Joshua 19:24–31 — Asher’s Inheritance. Each verse below carries the full apparatus: the Berean Standard Bible, the vocalized original (tap any word), and a parsed breakdown of every term transcribed from the interlinear. Synthesized commentary, canonical threads, and the reading of Christ gather at the end, over the whole unit.
24The fifth lot came out for the clans of the tribe of Asher:
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
ha·ḥă·mî·šî hag·gō·w·rāl way·yê·ṣê lə·miš·pə·ḥō·w·ṯām lə·maṭ·ṭêh ’ā·šêr ḇə·nê-
Literal — word-for-word from the original
And-the-fifth the-lot came-out for-their-clans, for-the-tribe of-the-sons-of-Asher.
Where the English smooths the original
the lot of the inheritance of the tribe seems to have fallen in such a way as to favour the construction of a united Israel—a Dodecaphulon, to use St. Paul’s word—an organised body of twelve tribes.
Asher received its territory along the Mediterranean Sea from Carmel to the northern boundary of Canaan itself.
who were descended from the eighth son of Jacob, and in the march through the desert closed the long procession side by side with Dan and Naphtali
25Their territory included Helkath, Hali, Beten, Achshaph,
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
gə·ḇū·lām way·hî ḥel·qaṯ wa·ḥă·lî wā·ḇe·ṭen wə·’aḵ·šāp̄
Literal — word-for-word from the original
And-their-territory was: Helkath, and-Hali, and-Beten, and-Achshaph,
Where the English smooths the original
The general position of the tribe was on the slope of the Galilean mountains from Carmel northwards, with Manasseh on the south, Zebulun and Issachar on the south-east, and Naphtali on the north-east, a narrow, but beautiful and fertile region.
and Achshaph was a royal city, whose king was taken by Joshua
Their border, on the north-west side.
26Allammelech, Amad, and Mishal. On the west the border touched Carmel and Shihor-libnath,
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
wə·’a·lam·me·leḵ wə·‘am·‘āḏ ū·miš·’āl hay·yām·māh ū·p̄ā·ḡa‘ ū·ḇə·šî·ḥō·wr bə·ḵar·mel liḇ·nāṯ
Literal — word-for-word from the original
and-Allammelech, and-Amad, and-Mishal; and-it-reached Carmel seaward and-Shihor-libnath;
Where the English smooths the original
Carmel westward — Or, Carmel by the sea, to distinguish it from Carmel in the tribe of Judah. This was a place of eminent fruitfulness, agreeably to the prophecy concerning Asher, Genesis 49:20 .
Shihor-libnath - i. e. "black-white." The two words are now generally admitted to be the name of a river
Literally, toucheth, i.e. skirteth , as in vers. 11 and 22. So in the next verse, with regard to Zebulun. The term appears to be the invariable one when a district, not a particular place, is spoken cf.
to Carmel … and to Shihor-libnath—that is, the "black" or "muddy river"JFB favours the Nahr Belka below Dor for Shihor-libnath; the identification of the river is disputed (Barnes, Cambridge, and Keil each name a different candidate), so the gloss of the name is firmer than the map.
27then turned eastward toward Beth-dagon, touched Zebulun and the Valley of Iphtah-el, and went north to Beth-emek and Neiel, passing Cabul on the left.
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
wə·šāḇ miz·raḥ haš·še·meš bêṯ dā·ḡōn ū·p̄ā·ḡa‘ biz·ḇu·lūn ū·ḇə·ḡê yip̄·taḥ- ’êl ṣā·p̄ō·w·nāh bêṯ hā·‘ê·meq ū·nə·‘î·’êl wə·yā·ṣā ’el- kā·ḇūl miś·śə·mōl
Literal — word-for-word from the original
and-it-turned toward-the-rising-of-the-sun to-Beth-dagon, and-touched Zebulun and-the-Valley-of-Iphtah-el northward, [to] Beth-emek and-Neiel, and-it-went-out to-Cabul on-the-left.
Where the English smooths the original
Cabul — A city so called. Left hand — That is, on the north, which, when men look toward the east, as is usual, is on their left hand.
The north-west boundary went from Zebulun into the valley of Jiphtah-el, i.e., the upper part of the Wady Abiln ( Joshua 19:14 ).
We learn that Dagon, the fish-god, was worshipped here as well as in the south of Palestine
28It went on to Ebron, Rehob, Hammon, and Kanah, as far as Greater Sidon.
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
wə·‘eḇ·rōn ū·rə·ḥōḇ wə·ḥam·mō·wn wə·qā·nāh ‘aḏ rab·bāh ṣî·ḏō·wn
Literal — word-for-word from the original
and-[to]-Ebron, and-Rehob, and-Hammon, and-Kanah, as-far-as Greater Sidon.
Where the English smooths the original
Rather, Ebron. It is not the same word as the Hebron in Judah, but is spelt with Ain instead of Hheth.
Great Zidon; called great for its antiquity, and riches, and glory. This city either was not given to the Israelites, but is only mentioned as their border; or at least was never possessed by them
this Kanah is generally thought to be the same where Christ wrought his first miracle, John 2:1 . Jerom expressly says (u), there was a Cana in the tribe of Asher, where our Lord and Saviour turned water into wine
29The border then turned back toward Ramah as far as the fortified city of Tyre, turned toward Hosah, and came out at the Sea in the region of Achzib,
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
hag·gə·ḇūl wə·šāḇ hā·rā·māh wə·‘aḏ- miḇ·ṣar- ‘îr ṣōr hag·gə·ḇūl wə·šāḇ ḥō·sāh wə·yih·yū ṯō·ṣə·’ō·ṯāw hay·yām·māh mê·ḥe·ḇel ’aḵ·zî·ḇāh
Literal — word-for-word from the original
And-the-border turned-back toward-Ramah and-as-far-as the-fortified city of-Tyre; and-the-border turned toward-Hosah, and-its-outgoings were at-the-sea, from-the-region-of Achzib;
Where the English smooths the original
To the strong city of Tyre — This translation is questionable; for we never read one word of the city of Tyre (unless it be here) until the days of David
The general impression among commentators appears to be that the island city of Tyre, afterwards so famous, had not as yet come into existence.
It is to be noted that both the fortified city Tyre and great Zidon were included in Asher’s inheritance, but no effort was made by the Israelites to obtain possession of these Phœnician cities.
and to the strong city Tyre—The original city appears to have stood on the mainland, and was well-fortified. From Tyre the boundary ran to Hosah, an inland town; and then, passing the unconquered district of Achzib (Jud 1:31), terminated at the seacoast.
30Ummah, Aphek, and Rehob. There were twenty-two cities, along with their villages.
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
wə·‘u·māh wa·’ă·p̄êq ū·rə·ḥōḇ ‘eś·rîm ū·šə·ta·yim ‘ā·rîm wə·ḥaṣ·rê·hen
Literal — word-for-word from the original
and-Ummah, and-Aphek, and-Rehob: twenty-and-two cities and-their-villages.
Where the English smooths the original
The number "twenty-two towns and their villages" does not tally, as there are twenty-three towns mentioned in Joshua 19:26-30 , if we include Sidon, Tyre, and Achzib
Which number does not correspond with the cities given, and at present the explanation is not clear.
The difficulty of tracing the boundary of Asher seems to be that it was traced, not by a line plainly marking out the territory, but less accurately, by a reference to the relative position of its principal cities.
31This was the inheritance of the clans of the tribe of Asher, including these cities and their villages.
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
zōṯ na·ḥă·laṯ lə·miš·pə·ḥō·ṯām maṭ·ṭêh ’ā·šêr ḇə·nê- hā·’êl·leh he·‘ā·rîm wə·ḥaṣ·rê·hen
Literal — word-for-word from the original
This [was] the-inheritance of-the-tribe of-the-sons-of-Asher according-to-their-clans — these cities and-their-villages.
Where the English smooths the original
This is the inheritance of the tribe of the children of Asher,.... As before described, a goodly heritage; it was, according to the prediction of Jacob and Moses, Genesis 49:20 ; a very fruitful country.
But to the richness of his soil and the proximity of the Phœnician towns the degeneracy and subsequent obscurity of Asher may be mainly traced.
Asher, however, never employed the advantages its situation offered. They never subdued the Canaanites around them, but, unquestionably at a very early date (see Judges 5:17 ) preferred a life of compromise and ignoble ease to the national welfare.
Here Asher could “dip his foot” in the oil of his luxuriant olive-groves ( Deuteronomy 33:24 ) such as still distinguish this region, and fatten on the bread , the fruit of the rich plain of Phœnicia and his fertile upland valleys ( Genesis 49:20 ). Here he could “yield royal dainties” ( Genesis 49:20 )The Cambridge editor reads the soil as the literal cashing-out of Jacob’s and Moses’ blessings, then turns the same wealth into the cause of Asher’s decline — the richness that should have been strength bred ease.
There seems no ground for the idea of Dean Stanley, that the allusion to Asher in Judges 5:17 is any more contemptuous than the allusion to any other tribe.An honest counter-voice: where Cambridge (following Stanley) hears the Song of Deborah mocking Asher’s “creeks,” the Pulpit Commentary checks the rhetoric, and notes that Asher still sent David 40,000 trained warriors (1 Chronicles 12). The apparatus records both readings rather than settling the tribe’s reputation by one verse.
The verse-by-verse work is done. What follows gathers the whole unit. All three layers below are machine-generated (⚙). Weigh them; they have no authority.
AI synthesis — woven from the public-domain voices above and the original text; generated and fallible.
The unit opens on a verb of emergence: way·yêṣê hag·gôrāl, “the lot went out” (v. 24). The territory is not taken; it comes forth, the pebble emerging from before the LORD at Shiloh. ⚙ The grammar makes the lot the actor and the tribe the recipient — the same theology of received possession that crowns the unit in the word naḥălāh, “inheritance” (v. 31). Keil & Delitzsch sketch the whole shape plainly: Asher “received its territory along the Mediterranean Sea from Carmel to the northern boundary of Canaan itself.” The name itself preaches: ’Āshêr means “happy / blessed.” And Ellicott hears in the careful balancing of the lots a deliberate design — “the lot of the inheritance of the tribe seems to have fallen in such a way as to favour the construction of a united Israel—a Dodecaphulon, to use St. Paul’s word—an organised body of twelve tribes.” Even a bare survey of coastal towns is, on this reading, an act of nation-building by providence.
The survey orients itself not by compass but by creation. West is hay·yām·māh, “seaward” (v. 26); east is mizraḥ haš·šemeš, “the rising of the sun” (v. 27); north is śəmōl, “the left hand” of a body facing the dawn. ⚙ Benson states the convention exactly: “on the north, which, when men look toward the east, as is usual, is on their left hand.” The boundary-verb is pāḡaʿ — to impinge, fall upon — which The Pulpit Commentary renders “toucheth, i.e. skirteth.” And the line runs disquietingly past a “House of Dagon”: The Pulpit Commentary notes that “Dagon, the fish-god, was worshipped here.” Asher’s inheritance is laced through with the names of other gods and the seam shared with Zebulun at the Valley of Iphtah-el — “God opens” — which Keil & Delitzsch tie to the same ravine at Joshua 19:14.
Northward the list reaches “as far as Greater Sidon” (v. 28) and “the fortified city of Tyre” (v. 29) — and here the apparatus turns honest about what Israel held. Poole: “Great Zidon … This city either was not given to the Israelites, but is only mentioned as their border; or at least was never possessed by them.” The Cambridge Bible makes the gap explicit: “both the fortified city Tyre and great Zidon were included in Asher’s inheritance, but no effort was made by the Israelites to obtain possession of these Phœnician cities.” ⚙ The text grants more than the tribe ever grasped — a recurring Joshua tension between the breadth of the promise and the narrowness of the taking. Two textual flags surface here, faithfully recorded by the sources: The Pulpit Commentary notes that “Ebron … is not the same word as the Hebron in Judah, but is spelt with Ain instead of Hheth” (the variant against Abdon of Joshua 21:30), and Benson doubts the very rendering “Tyre,” since “we never read one word of the city of Tyre … until the days of David.”
The summary “twenty and two cities” (v. 30) is openly at odds with the names enumerated. Keil & Delitzsch count the surplus: the number “does not tally, as there are twenty-three towns mentioned … if we include Sidon, Tyre, and Achzib.” The Cambridge Bible simply concedes, “the explanation is not clear.” ⚙ This study does not paper over the arithmetic; a fallible apparatus records the discrepancy rather than harmonizing it away. The unit then seals itself: zō’ṯ naḥălaṯ … lə·mišpəḥōṯām — “This was the inheritance … according to their clans” (v. 31), closing on the same clan-word that opened at v. 24. Gill calls it “a goodly heritage … according to the prediction of Jacob and Moses, Genesis 49:20; a very fruitful country.” Yet the richest soil bred the deepest failure: The Pulpit Commentary judges that Asher “never employed the advantages its situation offered … preferred a life of compromise and ignoble ease,” and The Cambridge Bible traces “the degeneracy and subsequent obscurity of Asher” to that very wealth and Phoenician proximity.
⚙ A fallible reading, offered to be tested against the Word. Eight verses of unmapped coastal towns are easy to skim — yet read under Sola Scriptura they carry a doubled weight. First, the framing words confess the theology of the whole book: the lot goes out (v. 24), the land is a naḥălāh, an inheritance (v. 31). Asher does not conquer this coast; he receives it. Second, the survey itself is candid about the distance between gift and grasp. “Greater Sidon” and “fortified Tyre” are written into the deed (vv. 28–29), but the sources are unanimous — the tribe never took them (Judges 1:31). The boundary even runs up to a “House of Dagon” (v. 27). So Asher’s map is at once a promise and an indictment: the LORD drew the line all the way to the great Phoenician cities, and the tribe settled for less, “content,” as the Cambridge Bible says, to dwell among the Canaanites. The very name ’Āshêr, “happy / blessed,” hangs over a tribe that the Song of Deborah will mock for abiding in its creeks. That is the warning the place-names whisper: an inheritance unentered is an inheritance forfeited — a lesson the New Testament will press on every heir of a better promise (Hebrews 4:1).
The LORD drew Asher’s border all the way to great Sidon; Asher stopped at the comfortable creeks.
AI-generated connections. Each carries a verification badge with a recorded basis; contested links are flagged.
⚙ The first town named in Asher’s portion, Ḥelqaṯ (“Helkath,” itself built on ḥêleq, “portion / share”), reappears as one of the towns Asher cedes to the Levites in the priestly allotment. The verifier records the shared lexeme H2520 Chelqath, which occurs in only two verses of the whole canon — so this is demonstrably the same town re-listed, the allotment-list (19:25) and the Levitical-grant list (21:31) naming one place. The rare lexeme would tempt a ‘verbal’ badge, but a shared toponym across two administrative surveys is an identification, not a quotation of a saying; the honest tier is therefore structural. The point still stands: Asher’s share of land becomes, in part, the priests’ share within Asher — the tribe gives back to the LORD out of what the LORD first gave.
Joshua 19:25 · Joshua 21:31
basis: rare shared lexeme H2520 Chelqath (Helkath), in only 2 vv of the canon — the identical town re-listed across the allotment (19:25) and Levitical-grant (21:31) surveys; a same-place identification across two administrative lists, downgraded from ‘verbal’ because a shared toponym is not a quotation
⚙ The fourth town in Asher’s opening line, ’Aḵšāp̄ (“Achshaph”), is no neutral name: it is the royal Canaanite city whose king Jabin of Hazor summoned into the great northern coalition (Joshua 11:1) and whom Joshua struck down (Joshua 12:20). John Gill records it flatly — “Achshaph was a royal city, whose king was taken by Joshua.” The rare lexeme H407 (in only three verses of the canon) ties the conquest narrative to the allotment: the throne broken in chapter 11–12 becomes a district handed to a tribe in chapter 19. The link is the same place re-listed from war-record to land-deed, so it is structural, not a quotation — but it preaches the book’s whole logic, that the LORD subdues the kings so that the tribes may inherit.
Joshua 19:25 · Joshua 11:1 · Joshua 12:20
basis: rare shared lexeme H407 ʼAkshâph (in 3 vv) binding the conquered royal city of the northern coalition (11:1; 12:20) to its parcelling within Asher’s share (19:25) — the same town re-listed from conquest-record to allotment, a structural identity, not a quotation
⚙ Asher’s eastern line “touched Zebulun and the Valley of Iphtah-el” (v. 27); the same ravine is named at Joshua 19:14 as the outgoing of Zebulun’s northern border. Keil & Delitzsch identify them as one place: “the north-west boundary went from Zebulun into the valley of Jiphtah-el … ( Joshua 19:14 ).” The basis is the rare name Yip̄taḥ-’êl (“God opens”), found in only these two verses, plus the shared words for “valley” and “north” — but this is a single geographic seam described from two sides, not a verbal quotation, so the link is structural.
Joshua 19:27 · Joshua 19:14
basis: shared boundary-seam named from both tribes: rare lexeme H3317 Yiphtach-ʼêl (in 2 vv) with H1516 gayʼ (valley) and H6828 tsâphôwn (north) — the same ravine where Zebulun’s line (19:14) meets Asher’s (19:27); described, not quoted
⚙ The town Kāḇūl at Asher’s northern turn (v. 27) shares its name with the “land of Cabul” of twenty cities that Solomon ceded to Hiram of Tyre (1 Kings 9:13) — the only other verse where the name occurs (H3521, freq 2). But the commentators themselves dispute the identity: Poole reasons against it (“this is not probable, because that was not within nor belonging to any particular tribe”), while The Cambridge Bible allows “there may be some connection.” Because the equation is contested in the very sources, the cross-reference is flagged rather than asserted.
Joshua 19:27 · 1 Kings 9:13
basis: rare shared lexeme H3521 Kâbûwl (in 2 vv), but the identity of Asher’s town with Solomon’s ‘land of Cabul’ is disputed by the commentators (Poole against, Cambridge allowing) — the verbal match cannot establish the geographic claim
⚙ The Phoenician frontier written into Asher’s deed — “Greater Sidon” (v. 28), the “region of Achzib” (v. 29) — is exactly the list Judges 1:31 returns to as the towns Asher failed to drive out: “neither did Asher drive out the inhabitants of Accho, nor … of Zidon … nor of Achzib.” The shared names Tsidon, Rechob, and Akzib bind the two passages. This is the promise-versus-possession gap that runs through Joshua and Judges as a structural motif: the boundary describes the gift; the sequel records the shortfall.
Joshua 19:28 · Joshua 19:29 · Judges 1:31
basis: shared toponyms H6721 Tsîydôwn, H7340 Rᵉchôb, H392 ʼAkzîyb binding Asher’s allotment (19:28–29) to the list of towns Asher failed to clear (Judges 1:31) — a possession-gap motif, not a quotation
⚙ Asher’s town “Ebron” (v. 28, spelled with ʿayin) corresponds in the Levitical list to Abdon (Joshua 21:30; 1 Chronicles 6:74). The Pulpit Commentary and Keil & Delitzsch debate whether one is a copyist’s error for the other — twenty manuscripts read Abdon at 19:28, yet all the ancient versions support Ebron. The verifier finds no shared original-language lexeme between the two verses precisely because the names diverge in the consonantal text — which is the heart of the problem. The connection is real but the provenance contested, so the link is flagged for verification against the manuscript evidence.
Joshua 19:28 · Joshua 21:30
basis: no shared lexeme in the index — the names diverge (Ebron with ʿayin vs Abdon); 20 MSS read Abdon at 19:28 but all ancient versions read Ebron (Pulpit, Keil) — a textual-variant identification that must be argued from manuscripts, not asserted
⚙ The unit closes by sealing this rich olive-and-grain coast as Asher’s naḥălāh (v. 31), and every source in the apparatus reads it as the cashing-out of two ancient prophecies. Gill: “a goodly heritage; it was, according to the prediction of Jacob and Moses, Genesis 49:20; a very fruitful country.” Benson and Poole both tie Carmel’s “eminent fruitfulness” back to “the prophecy concerning Asher, Genesis 49:20,” and The Cambridge Bible draws the whole web together — here Asher could “dip his foot” in oil (Deuteronomy 33:24), “yield royal dainties” (Genesis 49:20), with “iron and brass” under his shoes (Deuteronomy 33:25). The basis is the shared tribal name ’Āshêr plus the unmistakable land-blessing motif; this is a structural fulfillment-link, not a verbal quotation — the patriarch foretold the produce, and the allotment-list hands over the very ground that bears it.
Joshua 19:31 · Genesis 49:20 · Deuteronomy 33:24
basis: shared name H836 ʼÂshêr binding the tribe’s land-grant (19:31) to the patriarchal blessings of Jacob (Genesis 49:20) and Moses (Deuteronomy 33:24–25); a prophecy-and-fulfillment motif uniformly invoked by Gill, Benson, Poole, and Cambridge — structural, since the blessing’s vocabulary (oil, royal dainties, iron) is not quoted in Joshua’s boundary-list
AI-generated reading; weigh it against the text.
⚙ The unit’s hinge-words — the lot that goes out (v. 24) and the land called naḥălāh, “inheritance” (v. 31) — frame the land as a bequest from the LORD, possessed by gift and not by merit. The very fruitfulness of the grant was promised generations earlier, in Jacob’s word that Asher’s “bread shall be fat, and he shall yield royal dainties” (Genesis 49:20) and Moses’ blessing of oil and iron (Deuteronomy 33:24–25) — so the deed itself is the keeping of an old promise. Matthew Henry, commenting across this whole section, lifts the figure to its fulfillment in Christ: those who serve “seek an inheritance in the Canaan above … Our Lord Jesus came and dwelt on earth, not in pomp but poverty … Nor would he enter upon his inheritance, till by his obedience to death he secured the eternal inheritance for all his people.” Asher’s earthly portion, itself a fulfilled promise, is in turn a shadow of the imperishable inheritance Christ secures and the saints receive — a reading as old as the apostolic typology of the rest in Hebrews 4 and the inheritance “kept in heaven” of 1 Peter 1:4. The shadow even carries its own warning: an heir who is given a fat portion and settles for the comfortable creeks (Judges 5:17) is the standing caution to every heir of a better promise (Hebrews 4:1).
Joshua 19:24 · Joshua 19:31
⚙ Among Asher’s northern towns is Kanah (v. 28). John Gill records the patristic tradition: “Jerom expressly says … there was a Cana in the tribe of Asher, where our Lord and Saviour turned water into wine, John 2:1.” If the identification holds, then the coast where Asher “preferred a life of compromise and ignoble ease” is the very ground where the Word made flesh worked His first sign and “manifested forth his glory” (John 2:11). This is a novel / figural reading: it rests on a name-tradition (Jerome via Gill), not on the text of Joshua, and the location of New Testament Cana is itself disputed — so it is offered as a fragile typological grace-note, to be weighed, not leaned upon.
Joshua 19:28
The biblical text is the Berean Standard Bible (BSB), public domain (CC0). Hebrew/Greek text, transliteration, morphology and Strong’s are transcribed from the Berean interlinear (CC0) + Strong’s lexicons (PD); the literal renderings, divergence notes, word notes and all synthesis are this tool’s own work (⚙) — fallible; verify them.
Named voices, quoted verbatim from public-domain works:
⚙ This is a tribal boundary-list — eight verses of toponyms, most of them unidentified. The honesty notes for this unit: (1) The 22-city count does not match the enumeration. Keil & Delitzsch and the Cambridge Bible both flag the surplus; this study records the discrepancy rather than harmonizing it. (2) “Ebron” vs “Abdon” is a live textual variant (v. 28 ↔ Joshua 21:30): twenty manuscripts and the Masoretic text diverge, and the link is flagged accordingly. (3) “Tyre” is a contested rendering — Benson doubts the city was named so early; the sources agree the mainland fortress, not the later island, is meant. (4) The Cana-of-Galilee identification rests on a patristic name-tradition (Jerome via Gill), not on Joshua’s text, and is marked novel. (5) Every thread basis in this unit is a shared place-name, not the shared words of a saying — so although the verifier mechanically returns ‘verbal / quotation — confirmed’ for the rare toponyms (Helkath, Achshaph, Iphtah-el, Cabul, Sidon/Achzib), not one of these links is tiered ‘verbal’ here. A toponym recurring in two boundary, conquest, or Levitical lists is an identification of the same place, not a quotation; the editorial pass downgraded all of them to structural (Helkath 19:25 ↔ 21:31; Achshaph 19:25 ↔ 11:1/12:20; Iphtah-el 19:27 ↔ 19:14; Asher’s blessing 19:31 ↔ Genesis 49:20) or flagged where the very identity is disputed (Cabul ↔ 1 Kings 9:13; Ebron ↔ Abdon). (6) No NT quotation of this passage exists; the unit is not in Joshua 1 and contains no 1:5, so the Joshua 1:5 → Hebrews 13:5 flag does not apply here.
✦ = human, public-domain source, quoted and named. ⚙ = machine synthesis, to be verified. Flagged cross-references are left visible on purpose — the verifier working in the open. “Search the Scriptures daily, whether those things were so.” (Acts 17:11)