Question I. (marg.) When the explorers were sent, was Joshua one of the princes of the people?

In the prior chapter (last question) it was denied that Joshua was then in the number of the seventy elders. Now it is asked whether he was at least in the order of the other princes. And indeed, if we consult the text as we ought, it seems at once to be affirmed. For expressly the Lord [says] (Num. 13, v. 3 [2]): “Send men that may view the land, one of every tribe, of the princes.” Hebrew: “all princes among them” — namely among the “fathers,” of whom the tribes [consisted], or “among the tribes themselves.” And immediately it is added (v. 4 [3]): “Moses did what the Lord had commanded, from the desert of Paran, sending prince-men.” In Hebrew: “all of them men, heads of the children of Israel [were] they.” But if we compare that same text with another, which is Num. 1, and with the [things] said [above], it appears it must be denied. For it was said above that it seemed little seemly for Moses to use as minister one who bore some magistracy among the people; and in that first chapter all the princes of the people are enumerated — in whose catalogue Joshua is not, nor indeed any of the others enumerated [here as spies]. Nor can it be said either that those same [men] are named here by other names, or that these have now succeeded into their place. For how would not even one name be the same? Why, of set purpose, would such diverse names be set down? And what presses more: the parents’ names appended, and their genealogies touched in the first [book] of Chronicles, show these [to be] distinct from those. Take one, for example, Joshua. In this place he is said to have been prince of the tribe of Ephraim; there [Num. 1] it is “Elishama the son of Ammihud.” By the Acts [book] of 1 Chronicles 7, v. 27, Joshua is handed down [to be] the grandson of that same Elishama — as also appeared above (ch. 1, q. 7). But those [princes of Num. 1] were reckoned in the second year of the exodus, on the first day of the second month.

(col. 152)

And these our [spies], with only a few months — or rather weeks — elapsed, pertain to the same year. But did all those former [princes] die so quickly? If you say they died in the earlier murmuring, and by the plague brought on for it — namely at the graves of lust [Kibroth-hattaavah] — it is met [by this]: their sons ought at least to have succeeded them — for example, to “Elishama,” “Nun” himself; and so [Nun] would now be prince in Ephraim, not “Joshua,” but his father “Nun,” [son] of “Elishama,” and so of the others. There remained, then, still those former princes, either all or at least some of them. In what way, then, [were] both Joshua and the other companions of the exploration “princes”? I answer, first, that among the Jewish people the princes were twofold — namely political and ecclesiastical. But of these, again, [there were] various grades. For the one supreme in political [matters] was then Moses; in ecclesiastical, the high priest Aaron, and afterward another high priest (2 Chron. 26:7; in Hebrew he is called “priest-head”). The others were inferior. But, setting aside the ecclesiastical (of which nothing is now treated here), the political were either heads and princes in the whole people — and of this kind were those seventy of the prior chapter — or [they] were heads and princes from the single tribes; and these again twofold. For either there was some one [man], head and prince of a whole tribe, who was called phylarch [tribe-ruler]; or [head] of some portion within the same tribe. And this [latter], again, seems to have happened in two ways. For either the tribes themselves — “according to families and stocks,” which the Hebrew calls “houses of the fathers” or rather “paternities,” as the Seventy [do], when they render Numbers 1 οἴκους πατριῶν [houses of fathers], and (ch. 13) δήμους πατριῶν [peoples/districts of fathers] — were considered:

(col. 153)

…[either “according to families,” or] “according to number.” In the former way they were called “heads of families,” or simply “fathers” or “patriarchs.” In the latter way, according to the variety of the number of men, there was also a various reckoning of prefectures and names. For some were chiliarchs [rulers of a thousand], some centurions, some quinquagenaries [rulers of fifty], some decani [rulers of ten], as is set forth in Exod. 18 [and] Deut. 1; and, as Josephus adds (bk. 3, ch. 3), others were myriarchs, who were set over 10,000; others pentecosiarchs, [set over] 500; others triacontarchs, [over] 30; and icosiarchs, [over] 20. For example, let one [tribe] be inspected — from which is our Joshua — the tribe of the Ephraimites, in which (Num. 1, v. 32) there were 40,500 men. And therefore, besides the prince of the whole tribe, these princes were in it:

Officers of the tribe of Ephraim (40,500 men):

• 1. One phylarch — namely, Elishama.
• 2. [Princes of a portion]:
  • According to families (from 1 Chron. 7 and what was said above, ch. 1 q. 7) — the patriarchs [of the family] of the Raphites [and of the] Reshephites.
  • According to number:

For when, beyond the perfect number, some overflowed, either they were recalled to him who was the first of the same order, until, by new offspring, the due number should be made up; or [there was] in the same order one who was least of all, to whom the number [of his command] was not yet complete. For example: in this tribe, besides 40,000 there remain 500. These pertained to the first chiliarch, so that he presided over 1,500. But if there had been 600, or 700, or more, yet under a thousand, these could have had a chiliarch [of their own], but the lowest of all, until that thousand should be completed. Now, because among the perfect numbers which have their own completion there is the five-hundred [company], over these will preside next the pentecosiarch — who then, as I said, will obey the first of the chiliarchs; so that, whereas that prefecture ordinarily requires only two pentecosiarchs [per thousand], now, beyond the [regular] order, it has three. And all these can be called “heads of the people and princes.” And indeed of the 70, and of the phylarchs and the other greater ones, this is agreed; but of the lesser and inferior [ranks] too it is proved from Exod. 18, v. 25, where, in Hebrew, “heads set over the people” are divided into “princes of men” [over 1,000 / 100 / 50 / 10], and likewise Deut. ch. 1, v. 15. And the same are there also called “judges”; and to these are added those who in Hebrew [are] שוטרים [shoterim], by the Seventy γραμματο-εἰσαγωγεῖς [“registrar-officers”], or simply γραμματεῖς [“scribes/officers”], as at Exod. ch. 5, vv. 15 and 19, [and] by our interpreter there (v. 15) called “doctors” [teachers]; by which [word] the same [men] are signified together with the foregoing. And now not only these, but even their sons — though they did not yet actually hold these dignities, yet because they held them potentially and were of their blood — were sometimes also called “princes,” on account of their birth, namely, and their parents’ hoped-for dignity; just as today [we call] the sons of senators, princes, and kings [so]. Abulensis, then (after q. 2, and q. 12), says two [things]. First: that all these were not actually princes yet — because it is said (Num. 13, v. 3 [2]) “Send of the princes,” not “send the princes.” But the Hebrew text says outright, “Send men, all princes among them”; and the Greek, πάντα ἀρχηγοὺς αὐτῶν [“all their chiefs”]. Then, this conclusion is not a good—

(col. 154)

—one: “He is of the princes; [therefore] I [say he is] not a prince” — nay, rather the contrary is gathered, as was said above (ch. 7, q. 2). The second [thing Abulensis says]: that even if they were princes, yet they were not the supreme princes of the tribes, or phylarchs. And this has been sufficiently proved at the beginning of this question. Philo indeed (bk. 1 On Moses) says twelve phylarchs were sent, one from each tribe; but more generally he calls a “phylarch” [anyone] who holds any principate and office in a tribe — and therefore he adds that “the most approved” [τοὺς δοκιμωτάτους] were chosen by Moses “by merit” [ἀριστίνδην]. But if he who was properly a phylarch had to be sent, there would have been no need of any choosing. And therefore it must be said that all were princes — not by birth only, but also [holding] some of the enumerated prefectures. For Josephus calls them (bk. 3, ch. 13) “the most notable” [γνωριμωτάτους], and Philo, as we just now heard, “the most approved and those in office” [τοὺς δοκιμωτάτους καὶ τοὺς ἐν τέλει]. But how [could they be] such, if their only commendation were from birth? Then, the Lord could not have described more clearly those who had actually already entered on prefectures than [the way] He described these. Third: who would believe that Caleb — who afterward (Num. 34) was phylarch in the tribe of Judah, and at this time was already passing his fortieth year of age (Josh. 14, v. 7) — had not yet reached even a myriarchy, or a chiliarchy, or any other office? If, then, anyone should suppose that Joshua too — who had before led troops against the enemy and returned a victor — held at this time some such command, he would, as I reckon, in no way stray from the truth. But, on account of the [things] argued once and again before, it must be said that Moses wished to use as his minister one who did NOT hold some chief principate and dignity in the people (of which kind were those 70, and the phylarchs, and perhaps also the myriarchs); yet [Moses] did not refuse one endowed with a chiliarchy, or with some inferior office. For we see everywhere [that] not only in the courts of kings and princes, but even in the households of somewhat greater lords, those minister who nevertheless rule over others — so that they can say they are indeed under another’s power, yet have others also in their own power. And this could happen the more easily then, in proportion as those commands were [free] from all the heavier domi[nation…]

(col. 155)

…[those commands were] freer from domination, and more suited only to keeping order and right. And as often as there was need, Joshua could easily, by Moses’s kind leave, take leisure from his office, or give some other deputy, wise and good [in his place]. Let him, then, now be some one of the princes of the people.