Abulensis brings two causes. One: that they were foretelling Moses’s death, and Joshua’s own coming dignity and principality. The other: that he thought the excellent glory of Moses himself was diminished by them. And that former [cause], if it were true, would attest a wondrous modesty in Joshua, who would hear so unwillingly of his own glory and advancement. For at how great a price would another have bought such a hope or oracle? And it, as also the latter [cause], would show his singular affection and greatest love toward Moses. But the same Abulensis prefers the latter cause to it, in expounding these words, “Why hast thou emulation,” and [in] qq. 72 and 73. And truly, whence [that first cause] could in any way — or at least [as] probable — appear, nothing shows. For that boy had reported only that they were prophesying; he did not set forth the very things they were singing [foretelling]. Or if we should reckon that he did set them forth (since, from the fact that Scripture does not assert it, one may not firmly deny it), why nonetheless should we believe these prophecies were about Moses’s death and Joshua’s succession, rather than about some other matter? What of this — that here, as very often elsewhere, “prophecy” is taken by some not for a foretelling of things future, but for a declaring of certain hidden things (even if present or past), for a proclaiming of the divine works, and for divine praises? But if it truly was, properly, a foresensing and prediction of future things, were those [things] but few and noble that were—
(col. 141)
…were, that the matter of this prophecy should be necessary — [namely] about Moses’s death and Joshua’s rule? Yet the Jerusalem Targum seems to hand down this cause — unless [we say] it rather speaks mystically of Christ the Lord. For thus it speaks (in “Elias” [Levita], from Genebrard’s version, fol. 560): “And there remained two men in the camp, of whom one was called Eldad, the other Medad; and the Holy Spirit had settled upon them. Eldad prophesied thus: ‘Behold Moses the prophet, the scribe of the Israelites, is gathered from the midst of the world; and Joshua the son of Nun, his disciple, shall administer the affairs of the army after him.’ And Medad, prophesying, said: ‘Behold, a quail comes up from the sea, and was a stumbling-block to the Israelites.’ And both alike prophesied and said: ‘At the last end of days Gog and Magog and their host shall come up against Jerusalem; but they shall fall by the hands of King Christ [Messiah]; and with so great a slaughter that for a whole seven years the sons of Israel shall burn their weapons of war, neither going out to plow, nor lopping trees.’” But the other cause we can expand in various ways. For Moses’s glory seemed to be diminished: First, because those enrolled by him, and summoned to the tabernacle, had not come. For they could seem to despise Moses’s command and authority. Second, because, when at the Lord’s bidding he called them and promised them the divine gift of the Spirit and the government of the people, they seemed either not to believe him as he spoke, and so to lessen his credit, or to count all those things as nothing, and so to mock his promises as empty or at least trifling. Third, because, with other prophets now existing, Moses seemed to cease to surpass and excel the rest. For what good thing, if it be in one alone, makes him admirable and great and excellent above all — if it begin to be in several, begins to grow cheap, and [he] to be seen as but one of the crowd, [he] who once alone was so eminent and so surpassing. For the things that are rare are the more precious. Fourth, because these prophets existed not, like the other 70 or the two of the seventy, by Moses’s summons, appointment, and perhaps some entreaty, and unto his presence — but as of their own accord, he not praying for them nor being present. As if they were saying: not all things are to be sought from Moses; [that] they, without him, can also do something; [that] God imparts His gifts to others too; [that] there is no need, whether called or uncalled, for [men] always to run or fly to Moses for their sake. This, then — the impairment of Moses’s honor and preeminence — seems to be concluded, from Moses’s own word, to have been the cause why Joshua asked that Eldad and Medad be forbidden. “Why hast thou emulation for me?” For to “emulate on someone’s behalf” is to be indignant over his impaired advantage or dignity, to strive, [and] to undertake much labor and contention. But of this more in the next [question].