Abulensis (q. 54) denies it; and his cause for denying [is] that no mention is made of Joshua, but only of Caleb. For (v. 31 [30]): “Amid these things Caleb, stilling the murmur of the people that was rising against Moses, says: Let us go up and possess the land, for we shall be able to obtain it.” But if Joshua did not set himself against these waves, what then did he do? Did he too waver? Nay rather, something further will seem to have to be said: that he was the East or South wind in stirring up those waves. For when the text had said of Caleb the [things] I have brought, it subjoins: “But the others who had been with him said, We are not able to go up to this people.” With these others, then, was Joshua — a murmurer with the murmurers, a complainer with the complainers, a whirlwind and firebrand with the [other] firebrands of the whole sedition. There are, with him [Abulensis], [those] to whom, concerning Joshua, a suspicion is pleasing as to that first day and their first complaints and dissuasions. But could so great a wickedness — so bold and foul a lust of lying and of inciting the people — fall upon a head so approved and dear to God and Moses? And how [could it], since the Lord so often said that not even one of those who had murmured would enter the land of promise (ch. 14, vv. 22, 29, and 30; Deut. [1], 35), yet Joshua, together with Caleb, was excepted (Num. 14, v. 30; Deut. 1:38)? If you say that God forgave him this fault because on the next day he came to his senses and withstood the murmurers, you will indeed in that way give a splendid example of swift repentance from sin and of divine kindness toward those doing penance; but after Caleb began to go and meet the lies which had been blabbed out by the explorers, do we suppose that no one at all gave him credence, and [that Joshua] recalled himself from the fear of the murmuring he had taken up? And yet, if any repented even on that day, or the next, the penalty involved them all — that, because they had at least begun to murmur, they should not enter the land, [but] should tarry in the wilderness. But grant that Joshua alone corrected himself: ought his sin nevertheless to have been wholly immune from all penalty? The ten other explorers died suddenly (as will be told later), and were “struck in the sight of the Lord” (Num. 14, v. 37). But Caleb and Joshua lived. All the rest of the people were fined with this penalty, that from it not even one entered the land. Yet Caleb and Joshua entered. If Joshua was in some way a partaker of this crime, why [is he] not in some way a partaker of the penalty? Why is he not struck with at least some plague? For not much before this very time Miriam had murmured a little, and about a matter of much less moment; and yet, although she was now aged, and holy, and a prophetess, and the sister of Moses himself — nay, his preserver, and almost a second mother, who most fittingly had him, drawn out of the waters, suckled and reared — she was struck with leprosy. And when Moses prayed the Lord for her with a great cry, he heard: “If her father had spat upon her face, ought she not to have been covered with shame at least for seven days? Let her be separated seven days outside the camp.” But Joshua, who [supposedly] had so forgotten his own duty that he not only murmured himself, but, to murmur against Moses and God, [stirred] not some few, but so huge a multitude of so many thousands — and that with so many and so impudent lies and calumnies—
(col. 163)
…[with such lies and calumnies] against his own conscience had stirred [the multitude] — would he go unpunished? would he feel nothing at all of divine vengeance, even for a single day or two? Abulensis, therefore, devises something else: that on that first day of sedition Joshua neither murmured, nor incited others to murmur, nor withstood the murmurers and inciters. But “he was in the middle,” he says — that is, he neither murmured, nor quieted the murmur. There is an ancient law of Solon, in Gellius (bk. 2, ch. 12): “In a case of civil discord, whoever shall have joined himself to neither of the two sides, but, solitary and separated, shall have withdrawn from the common evil of the city — let him be deprived of home, country, and all his goods, [and] be an exile and a wanderer.” But of greater weight against this “middle” position is the divine institution of Ecclesiastes 3: “A time to speak, a time to keep silence.” And what time [is] more necessary for speaking than when counsels are entered upon against the magistrates and God Himself, tongues are set in motion, [and] secession [from Moses] is proclaimed? And who [was it] more fitting should cry out against [it], shout, and protest, than Joshua? For that has been proved above. “Shrewdly,” in Suetonius (Julius, ch. 75), Caesar “declared that the neutrals, and those of neither party, would be counted by him among his own [enemies].” And neither Moses nor Aaron, when it was chiefly at stake that the divine promises should fall to nothing and [God] Himself be shown fickle in them, could say the same. Those who then did not stand by Moses, or rather by God Himself, were all enemies and traitors. To be “in the middle” then, to keep silent, not to withstand the cohort of impiety, is to betray the cause of God, and to prevaricate by wicked silence. Isaiah the Prophet execrates certain [such], saying (ch. 56, v. 10): “Dumb dogs, not able to bark.” But what greater necessity of barking [is there] than when robbers rush into the Lord’s house, wolves into the flock, adversaries against the Lord Himself? Whoever, then, calls Joshua “in the middle” at that time in no way excuses him, but gravely accuses him, and makes him guilty of a mean, cowardly, and unseasonable silence. Thus, then, I determine: that he, together with Caleb, withstood the beginnings of this tumult as far as he could, and was not dumb, quiet, or “in the middle” at those first outcries, in the way [Abulensis says]. 1. Because, without any indication of wavering or silence, his constancy, virtue, and religion in those troubles is not rarely commended, as [in] the following ch. 14, vv. 6, 30, 38; [and] Ecclesiasticus 46, v. 9, where [is] this splendid eulogy: “In the days of Moses, he did a work of mercy — he, and Caleb the son of Jephone — to stand against the enemy, and to withhold the people from sins, and to break the murmur of malice.” 2. Because the most ornate phrase which is given to Caleb in his praise is applied also to adorn Joshua himself. And that [phrase] is: “that Caleb, full of another spirit, followed the Lord” (Num. ch. 14, v. 24), or, as [in] Josh. 14, v. 8, “he followed the Lord.” In that place of Numbers the Hebrew could be so rendered — as Oleaster too advised: “To my servant Caleb there shall be, namely, a reward or recompense”; and the reason is subjoined: “another spirit was with him, and he fulfilled [it] after me.” For עקב [ekev] often signifies a reward or recompense — which, as in the body [is] the sole of the foot, so in acting is the last [thing] — as [in] Ps. 18:11, Ps. 39:16, Ps. 69:3, Ps. 118:33 and 112. Then, because the promise of God made to Caleb himself is more [fully] explained, of which [in] Josh. 14:9. Third, because it fits better — [even] if in the version that word be passed over, or be rendered (as by some it is) “for the reason that” or “because,” on account of the conjunctive—
(col. 164)
—particles which are in the Hebrew. For what sense [is there], if we say, “My servant Caleb, for the reason that another spirit was with him, hath fulfilled after me — and I will bring into the land”? Yet these conjunctions are for the most part omitted by those who will not [have] the causal particle there — as Vatablus, Pagninus, and perhaps our [interpreter]. For instead of “Caleb, who [is] full,” he perhaps wrote “Caleb because [he is] full” — especially since in the Greek too there is ὅτι [“because”]. But “to fulfill after the Lord” is, as our [interpreter] and the Seventy rightly render, “to follow the Lord” — but not in any way whatever, but with great care and zeal, so that of the things God willed to be done, nothing (so far indeed as it can be done) is passed over, but all are done carefully and diligently. For this both the very word “fulfilling” imports, and the Hebrew conjugation “Piel” — which expresses force and intensity — [at] Josh. 14, v. 8, 9, and here Num. 14, v. 24, as the dages itself indicates (although for the chireq a pathach is subscribed [pointed]). But, on the contrary, [at] Num. 32, vv. 11 and 12, the people is denied to have “fulfilled after the Lord,” and therefore also [is denied] to be about to enter the land — “except Caleb and Joshua, because they fulfilled after the Lord.” Behold, our Joshua too is said to have “fulfilled after the Lord.” But how would he have fulfilled [it], if on the first day, when there was chiefly need of constancy and truth, he had “played the middle [neutral]” — that is, had remained, against his duty, motionless, tongue-tied, disjoined from the people, [and] not joined to Moses? There are three other expositions of the same speech in Oleaster: that the Lord says [Caleb] “fulfilled after Him” — [Caleb] who followed Him not only before, but also then; who fulfilled His word; who followed Him fully, or in all things held His side. But none of these would have been performed by Joshua, if on that day he had deserted Moses, truth, and constancy. And this very [thing] seems to be what is said by Mattathias (1 Macc. 2, v. 55): “Jesus [Joshua], while he fulfilled the word, was made Leader in Israel.” Now, how this fault of his could not have been free from all penalty and at least some rod, was said above. Fourth, finally: what cause could be brought, why he would refuse at once to join himself to Moses and to meet the rising murmur? Some, in Abulensis (q. 55), answer that Joshua was not present at that first beginning of the tumult. But it is certain that he had returned with the other explorers, and (as was said before) had borne the grape into the people’s sight on his own shoulders. Whither, then, would he now have gone? Had he betaken himself, for religion’s sake, to the new tabernacle of the covenant, or to that his old dwelling of the old sacred tabernacle? He wished, no doubt, at once to give thanks to God for the happy return of himself and his companions, and to restore himself as swiftly as possible to his former keeping and care of the sacred place. This would have no little probability, and [would be] a good example unto piety — unless that religion [religious act] should seem too unseasonable: [namely,] not to be present even at the report of the first of those things which had been done and noted on the whole journey. For to what end had he been sent, unless that he might learn about that land, survey it with his own eyes, explore everything, and at last, returning, set up an account and narration for Moses and the people? For it was for this cause too that so great a number of them was chosen — that all [things] might be the more certain and better attested, [and] that so many, agreeing, might report the same [things].
(col. 165)
…[to weaken the truth] and to detract authority from the whole embassy — that indeed would have been too unseasonable. There is added that, without doubt, he had already noticed, on that whole journey, many signs of the depraved will of the other explorers, [and] had marked the little mutterings of the [now] tumultuous, already indices of their minds. Why, then, would he not fear that what did happen would happen, and that they would be instigators to that people for murmuring? And if he did fear it, how [could he], at such and so unseasonable a time, withdraw by his absence his own voice for the truth and open testimony? “It can be believed,” says Abulensis in the same place, “that Joshua, even if he had now been present, would not have dared to contradict the people; or perhaps he was awaiting Moses’s order upon this.” Yet neither, as I reckon, is credible. For the former would have joined him with excessive cowardice and timidity — which was indeed always as far as possible from so great and so lofty and brave a spirit. And the latter attributes to Joshua an inept modesty and too ridiculous an imprudence. Did he not know what patronage he owed to the truth? Could he in any way doubt what Moses’s mind and will, [and] what God’s judgment, was in such a matter? Did he not see what Caleb did, and with how much of Moses’s will and approval? It would have more probability if, since he had seen so great a wickedness of the other explorers and so great a madness of the seething people, we attributed to him, out of the utmost indignation at the affair, that [of] Aeneid 2: “I was stunned, and my hair stood on end, and my voice stuck in my throat.” For in the following ch. (qq. 9 and 29) Abulensis thinks it can be supposed that Moses and Aaron, thunderstruck by the new and unheard-of crime of the people, fell to the ground. Yet it seems [the mark] of a less prudent mind, and one less prepared against the various darts not of fortune but of human commotions and disturbances, to be so moved that they perform neither speech nor flowing duty. He would seem little fit for the helm of a commonwealth, and for the administration of certain greater affairs, whom, if anything happen beyond his expectation, [it] so greatly confounds, unnerves, [and] casts down from his mental footing. It is rather to be supposed, then, that by speech and by whatever action he could, [Joshua] countered those murmurers. That only which was veiled at the beginning of this question remains to be seen: why, in the first onset of this frenzy, mention is made only of Caleb, not of Joshua. To me, considering it, two [things] occur. One: that from Joshua’s being passed over in silence it is not rightly inferred that he too was silent. For in all those chapters of Numbers (13 and 14), what did Moses say to the people to quiet those commotions? Nothing is recorded — and yet (Deut. ch. 1, v. 29) he professes that he tried by many [words] to call them away from all fear and dread. The other: that of the same Joshua [Scripture] is at times silent because it was nearly taken for granted that he clung to Moses, his lord and master — so that, when those whirlwinds were stirred against Moses, it was not to be doubted that, as Moses [did], so also his most faithful minister labored to compose them. This is clear from what has been said so far (especially ch. 4, qq. 5, 6, 15), and seems gatherable from Josh. 14, v. 8, where, speaking of that very tragedy to Joshua himself, Caleb says: “My brethren who went up with me melted the heart of the people.” What “brethren”? Even Joshua himself? Truly a brother by race and tribe, as also [were] the other explorers from the various tribes. But—
(col. 166)
—yet he does not include him in these words. For otherwise he would gravely censure the man whom, a little before (v. 6), he had joined to himself as companion in the praise of this deed. Nay, of him who by God was prince of the people and Moses’s successor — as if it were manifest to all what he then did — [Scripture] is thus now silent, and speaks only of the others. And perhaps, what Moses says he told the murmuring people (Deut. 1), this he said through Joshua; or rather, both through himself, and through his [minister] Joshua. Whose innocence and virtue, from these [considerations], seems defended even against those Rabbis who, in Masius (on Josh. 14, pp. 243, 244), do not fear to accuse him — both of cowardice, because with Caleb he was unwilling to go up to Hebron, and of wicked pretense, because [they say] he and Caleb only feigned on the road to be of the same opinion with the other explorers.
That in the deepest mourning, among the Jews and other nations, there was a rending of one’s own garments, I have shown at Esther ch. 4. And that mourning was stirred either by the death of dear ones, or by any calamity, public or private; but among the pious, and men more loving of God, [by grief] over sins — one’s own or others’ — past, or over some insult hurled by impious men against God Himself. For hence [came] the feigned and hypocritical rending of garments by Caiaphas, when he wished to convict Christ the Lord of blasphemy against God (Matt. 26); and, on the contrary, the Lord’s rebuke of certain [men] because they did not do it when the matter demanded, in Jeremiah (ch. 36, v. 24): “And they were not afraid,” he says, “nor did they rend their garments — the king and all his servants, who had heard all those words.” Joshua and Caleb, then, most holy men — when they saw, by the other explorers and by the now-raving crowd, so great an injury done to the divine goodness (as though He had either vainly promised the entrance to that best of lands, or through weakness could not fulfill what He had promised, or certainly, through some grave and bitter hatred toward the Israelites, the posterity of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, would not) — rent their garments. But since the clothes of all the Israelites were divinely preserved in the wilderness (Deut. 8), how could they tear them? and, granting they could, how, in doing this very thing, did they not sin? For they seemed to break a miracle of God.