Moses describes it in two ways. First, from the victory (v. 13). Then, from those [things] which followed the victory (vv. 14, 15, 16). The victory [was] certainly greatest and most noble, [and] set forth by him in these very few words: “And Joshua put Amalek to flight, and his people, by the edge of the sword.” Where it must be noted, first, that what in the Latin, and in the Greek, is put to flight, in the Hebrew is the verb he broke, [he] weakened. And thence some of the Rabbis have concocted a witty little tale: [that] the Amalekites wished, by the force of magic arts, to fly, and to rush upon the Israelites from on high with great force, after the manner of harpies; but [that] Joshua showed them the tetragrammaton, the name of God, and thus they were broken and weakened. Others [say] that the bravest [men] of the Amalekite army were each taken away [slain]. And this indeed [is] true — but not those alone [were] slain, but [also] the greatest multitude of them all, so that their strength was greatly cut down and weakened; and the remain-…
(col. 81)
…[so that their strength was greatly cut down and weakened,] and the rest [were] turned to flight. For hence too [in] Exodus 32, v. 18: “Col Enoch Chelschah, the voice of those who are turned to flight” — or, as the Chaldee paraphrase renders [it], “the voice of the weak: [those] who are overcome.” Josephus, however, observes [that] they were all to have been slain in utter destruction, had not the oncoming night restrained the Israelites from the slaughter. 2. On purpose Moses used that Hebrew verb of breaking, that he might signify [that] deserved punishments were rendered to the iniquity of the Amalekites. For those whom (Deuteronomy 25, v. 18) he relates to have been slain by them [the Amalekites] — the weary, or the Israelites weak from the hardship of the journey — he calls by the same word, but so that [there] is in it a transposition of one letter, by which the changing of their [the Amalekites’] fortune is signified. Then the Amalekites were triumphing, were strong, were flourishing. Now all [is] transposed [reversed] for them. 3. Because such distinct mention is here made of Amalek himself, and then of his people, [it] would perhaps seem [that] the King of the Amalekites was killed, or, if he escaped, was signally wounded. And this latter I would believe [to be] more probable — because, whereas Scripture so often makes mention of Og and Sihon, the slain Kings, [yet] about this [one] it is silent. 4. The mouth of the sword is its edge, because with that part, namely, it, as it were, bites, consumes, [and] drinks blood. Whence Luke 21, v. 24, “they shall fall by the mouth [edge] of the sword”; [and] to the Hebrews 4; Apocalypse 1, μάχαιρα and ῥομφαία δίστομος, a sword of two edges, or two-edged; Judges 19, v. 29; Proverbs 30, v. 14. Swords and knives — from the fact that they eat and devour — are called maccaloth [מאכלת]. The Septuagint here expressed the same thing from [its] effect: ἐν φόνῳ μαχαίρας, “in the slaughter of the sword.” And [let them] imitate that [of] the Gauls, when they say, à trancher de l’espée [to cut with the sword]. The holy Moses makes, without doubt, God the chief author of this victory. But, among men, Joshua seems [to be] the one especially to be celebrated, since so roundly [flatly] he says the Amalekites [were] weakened and routed not by himself [Moses], but by that one [Joshua]. Yet some think [that] that conjunction -que [and], when it is said fugavitque [and he put to flight], is to be taken — as sometimes elsewhere — for the illative, [i.e.] therefore, as if it had been said: “Moses was most constant in assiduous prayer, and therefore Joshua put to flight the forces of the Amalekites.” And indeed [in] Judith 4, v. 13, that praise is most plainly attributed to Moses himself, who cast down those most proud enemies not by fighting with the sword, but by praying with holy prayers. Yet, because there is often not one cause only of the same thing, I think [that] Moses indicated [that] he himself, indeed, for the glory of God, brought forth this victory by praying, but Joshua himself by fighting — that we might understand [that] these two are the best and surest instruments of waging wars: prayers to God, and human industry — as I have noted more fully elsewhere, on that ch. 4 of Judith. For without the effort of men, and the exertion of the strengths supplied by God, the author of nature, prayer is sluggish and cowardly, almost tempting God himself; and without prayers, and his aid, all human strengths, studies, and efforts are maimed, empty, and foolish. “Unless the Lord keep the city, he watches in vain who keeps it” (Psalm 126). Yet, if we wish rightly to weigh all [things], much more of protection is always to be placed in the divine help. And this Moses signified here, when he narrated [that] the hostile battle-line first sank down at the stretching-out of both [his] palms to the stars. And more clearly, as I touched above, [did] Eliachim the Priest [signify it] (Judith ch. 4). Truly Solomon (Proverbs ch. 21): “The horse is prepared for the day of battle; but the Lord bestows safety.”
(col. 82)
See Cassian (Conference 3, ch. 15).
Two [things] are narrated in that same chapter which is in hand: one about God, [and] the other about Moses. But here, first, [there are] those [things] which Josephus hands down (book 3, ch. 2) about the booty and the huge spoils — [things] to be summoned into this [chapter] as, it were, into a theater.