JABIN discerner ; Sept. 'lapiv). 1. King of Hazor, and one of the most powerful of all the princes who reigned in Canaan when it was in vaded by the Israelites. His dominion seems to have extended over all the north part of the coun try; and after the ruin of the league formed against the Hebrews in the south by Adonizedek, king of Jerusalem, he assembled his tributaries near the waters of Merom (the lake Huleh), and called all the people to arms. This coalition was destroyed, as the one in the south had been, and Jabin him self perished in the sack of Hazor, his capital, B.C. 1450. This prince was the last powerful enemy with whom Joshua combated, and his overthrow scems to have been regarded as the crowning act in the conquest of the Promised I,and (Josh. xi. 1-14).
2. A king of Hazor, and probably dcscended from the preceding. It appears that during one of the servitudes of the Israelites, probably when they lay under the yoke of Cushan or Eglon, the kingdom of Hazor was reconstructed. The narrative gives to this second Jabin even the title of king of Canaan; ' and this, with the possession of goo iron armed war-chariots, implies unusual power and extent of dominion. The iniquities of the Israelites having lost them the Divine protection, Jabin gained the mastery over them ; and, stimulated by the remembrance of ancient wrongs, oppressed them heavily for twenty years. From this thral dom they were relieved by the great victory won by Barak in the plain of Esdraelon, over the hosts of Jabin, commanded by Sisera, one of the most renowned generals of those times, B.C. 1285. The well-compacted power of the king of Hazor was not yet, however, entirely broken. The war was still prolonged for a time; but ended in the entire ruin of Jabin, and the subjugation of his territories by the Israelites (Jud.g. iv.) This is the Jabin whose name occurs in Ps. lxxxiii. io.—J. K.
Addendum.—The question has been raised whe ther these two Jabins were not one and the same ; and the affirmative has by some been assumed as an argument against the authenticity of the narrative in Joshua (De Wette, Einl. ins A. T., p. 251 ; Maurer, Comment. in loc.); while others think that the two narratives may be of events so nearly contemporaneous that they may have hap pened in the lifetime of the same person. This
latter hypothesis, however, cannot possibly be re tained ; for, even supposing that the ordinary chronology, which places the defeat of Sisera 15o years aftcr the thne of Joshua, requires correction, no correction that can be legitimately made will render it possible to synchronise the two narratives, nor can we suppose that within the lifetime of one man Hazor could have been rebuilt, the shattered kingdom of its ruler restored, and that ruler en abled to tyrannise over his former conquerors for 20 years. It has been asked, What is to pre vent us from supposing Jabin and his confederate kings .to have been defeated both by Joshua and by Barak?' The reply is, That as Joshua killed the Jabin with whom he fought (Josh. ii. 1o) the latter could not be alive to fight again with I3arak, even supposing Joshua and Barak were contem poraries, as some would make them (Hervey, Gene alog-y of our Lord, p. 228). The only alternative Possible, is the supposition that there were two Jabins, the one the antagonist of Joshua and destroyed by him, the other a later, prince, by whom the recovered strength of the Canaanites was brought to bear on the Israelites so as to keep them in subjection until Barak delivered them ; Or the supposition that the narrative in Joshua is bor rowed from that in Judges, or vice versa. The burden of proof here lies on those who adopt the latter side of this alternative. They must show that the other side is impossible or incredible ; and they must show what possible cause there is for sup posing that the author of the book of Joshua should seek to defraud Barak of his rightful fame, or the author of the book of Judges seek to defraud Joshua of his. That Hazor was rebuilt after its destruc tion by Joshua we know (see Kings ix. 15), and this may have been done by the time of the second Jabin ; though, as it is nowhere said that he resided in Hazor, but only that he ruled over Hazor, this latter supposition is not necessary for the credibility of the narrative (Havernick, Ein/. ii. 53 ; Keil 01A yosIt2ia, p. 28? ; Winer, .R. IV. B., s.v .)—W. L. A.