St. Augustine, in the cited place, asserts it was possessed in Solomon’s times; but Cajetan and Oleaster [say] also in David’s. Masius denies both, in the cited place. But doubtless [these authors], who felt [differently] in the former part of the previous question, speak in mutual agreement [i.e. their disagreement flows from their differing premises]. For because St. Augustine thought this land was given divinely only in such a way that it would be tributary, therefore he affirms that this too was given [into] effect in Solomon’s time; but because Masius judges it was given in such a way that — the cultivators being driven out — the Israelites should hold and settle in it, therefore he denies that this donation was committed to execution.
I say, therefore, first: that this land was truly subject and tributary to Solomon, up to the river Euphrates. For 3 Kings [1 Kings] 4 it is thus written: “Solomon was in his dominion, having all the kingdoms with him, from the river unto the land of the Philistines, and unto the border of Egypt, [the peoples] offering gifts to him, and serving [him] all the days of his life.” But what [is] that “river”? Is it not that which is precisely named “by excellence” [κατ’ ἐξοχήν, kat’ exochēn] in the Scriptures? Is it not that which — [as] said above — is called “great”? Is it not, in fine, that which, without any ambiguity, the Lord indicates in Gen. 15, when he says: “From the river of Egypt unto the river Euphrates”? — [the word] there, “unto” [usque ad], which our Interpreter rightly added, so that it might express the Hebrew ellipsis (which elsewhere too is not rare). Though it be a wonder how this whole period is not [so] in the Seventy — which nonetheless the Greeks have in some [copies], as in the Royal Bibles [the Polyglot] — but [there] they say, less aptly, ἀπὸ ποταμοῦ τῆς γῆς φιλισταίων [apo potamou tēs gēs philistaiōn, “from the river of the land of the Philistines”]. And in the same book, 3 Kings ch. 4, after the words just cited, not much later: “He (Solomon) held all the region which was across the river, from Thapsa unto Gaza, and all the kings of those regions, and he had peace on every part round about.” But Thapsa here is that which — approaching the Hebrew name of the city Thiphsah — is called in Ptolemy bk. 5 Thapsacus, where [are] the fords of the Euphrates. But in these words that [word] “across” [trans] is to be taken for “at” [ad] or “beside” [iuxta], just as the same Hebrew particle is taken also at Isa. 9:1, Matt. 4:14, & 2 Chron. 20:2 — as indeed [it] seems to our Maldonatus on Matt. 4. For because from both banks of some river one can cross to the other, therefore that particle signifies both banks, and answers as well to “across” [trans] more strictly taken, as to “on this side” [cis], or “beside” [iuxta] and “at” [ad]. And therefore our Interpreter, [for] what in those same cited words is said in Hebrew, “in all the Kings across the river,” rendered “all the kings of those regions.” And again, [for] what is added, “and he had peace on every part round about,” the Hebrew thus expresses it: “And to Solomon was peace from every [side] across that [river]” (namely the river) “round about.” But the Chaldee, in both these descriptions of Solomon’s empire, always expressly put the name Perath [Euphrates] itself, but retained the Hebrew particle, which the interpreter interpreted [as] “across” and “on this side.” Since nonetheless the discourse is always about the Euphrates, the particle is always to be taken not specially — as “on this side” is wont to be opposed to it — but generally, insofar as it includes and signifies this, just as I said a little [before, and]
(col. 274 [printed 275])
as I said before. For otherwise it must be judged that even beyond the Euphrates — under Solomon’s dominion — Mesopotamia, or some part of it, came [under it]; and therefore cautiously and truly Josephus indicated that matter [as being] “from the Euphrates” (bk. 8 ch. 2): ἦσαν ἕτεροι τῷ βασιλεῖ ἡγεμόνες, οἱ τῆς τε Σύρων γῆς καὶ τῶν ἀλλοφύλων, ἥ τις ἦν ἀπ’ Εὐφράτου ποταμοῦ διήκουσα μέχρι τῆς Αἰγυπτίων [there were other governors for the king, [those] of the land of the Syrians and of the foreigners, which extended from the river Euphrates as far as [that] of the Egyptians] — that is: “There were other Princes for King Solomon, and to them [was given rule] in the land of the Syrians and of other nations, which pertained from the river Euphrates unto the land of the Egyptians,” or [thither] it proceeded [extended].
I say, second: that similarly it seems the same land was subject and tributary to Solomon’s father David. For although it is not so expressly prescribed of him as of Solomon, it is nonetheless sufficiently intimated. Num. [—], 1 Chron. 18:2, 2 [Sam.] ch. 8 v. 3, he is said to have “set out, that he might have dominion over the river Euphrates.” For thus best — what is in Hebrew, “that he might bring his hand into the river Euphrates” — our Interpreter rendered; and what [is] in the Greek, ἐπιστῆσαι τὴν χεῖρα αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ τὸν ποταμὸν Εὐφράτην [to set his hand upon the river Euphrates].
But that he truly was made master of his vow [attained his wish], and returned triumphant to Jerusalem with several partial victories, is clear from the same chapter. For v. 6: “Syria was made David’s, serving under tribute, and the Lord preserved David in all things to which he set out.” There accedes the congratulation of the King of Emath [Hamath], v. 10; the immense abundance of spoils, v. 11; the little catalogue, as it were, of the conquered nations, v. 12, 14. To these [add]: the whole region on this side of the Euphrates obeyed Solomon, as [was] shown a little before; either, therefore, it subjected itself to him voluntarily [ultro], or [being] compelled. Not voluntarily — for that would be a great miracle, and therefore, when it is unfolded together with the majesty of Solomon himself, and [his] most widely extended kingdom, it would by no means be passed over in silence. [It was] compelled, therefore. But either by Solomon himself, or by his Parent David. Not by [Solomon] himself: because in the first and greatest part of his kingdom he waged nothing at all of wars. For therefore both the building of the temple was committed to him, and the name of Peaceful [Pacific] was imposed. By David, therefore, it had been subdued by arms, and made tributary.
I say, third: that neither in Solomon’s, nor in David’s time were the old colonists ever cast out from thence, nor did the Israelites fix domiciles there. It is plain. Otherwise the region would not have been tributary, but — like the rest of the Jews’ land — free; and there would have been in it some Prefects, established for [collecting] the necessary revenue [commeatum] to be paid to Solomon, just as in the 12 tribes (3 Kings [1 Kings] 4); nay, and cities of refuge would have been established, as [was] said in the previous question.
I say, fourth: that this land was not given to the Israelites in that full and perfect manner in which it was promised — [namely] that they should possess it. For it was given [only] insofar as they themselves should dwell in it, the former lords being expelled, as [was] proved in the previous question; and it was never so possessed by them, as [was] already shown.
I say, fifth: that the cause why the Lord did not give the land in that full and perfect manner is that it was because of the posited condition — of which [it was] said in the last, eighth part of the question — [namely that] the Israelites did not keep the place [i.e. failed the condition]. For after Solomon — nay, under the very supreme [last] time of his life — [they] declined to idols, and not only once, nor in one manner only. “If,” says St. Jerome (to Dardanus, epist. 129), “thou hadst observed, O Judaea, the commandments of God, and hadst walked in his precepts; if thou hadst not, in place of the omnipotent God, worshipped Baal-Peor, and Baal, Beelzebub, and Chemosh — whom, because thou hast preferred to God, all [things]…”
(col. 275)
—[continuing Jerome:] “…which had been promised to thee, thou hast lost. And to me [Judaea] in the Gospel are promised the kingdoms of heaven — which the Old Instrument [Testament] does not name at all. But if I do not [do] the things which are the precepts, in no way will there be fault in the promiser, but in me, who did not merit to receive the promise. For where an option is proposed for choosing, [and] one refuses to work, in vain wouldst thou desire that which is promised.” And on Ezek. ch. 20 he says [that] Palestine, Phoenicia, Arabia, Coele-Syria, Cilicia, and the other regions had been promised — “which,” he says, “O Israel, if thou hadst kept God’s precepts, the Lord had promised [again]; which, because thou didst not receive, it was the fault of thy incredulity.” Furthermore, [that they might possess it] to the full and perfect [degree], it was necessary not only to conquer and subdue the nations of that land, but also to abound in so numerous an offspring that it might be lawful to lead as many colonies as possible thither.
I say, sixth: that the cause why nonetheless the same land was in some manner given to the Israelites for obedience and tribute is [that it was] because he willed by degrees to lead them into the fullest and most perfect possession. And therefore first he subjected it to them; and would afterwards have brought about that in it alone they should dwell, had not the impediments of [their] crimes been thrown [in the way]. And he would have brought [it] about in twofold [manner]: first, by so breaking and enervating those nations that, without any treaty, surrender, or condition, they should either have wholly yielded into the power of the Israelites — so that these might expel them at their own judgment, or retain [them] in the place of slaves — or in battles and destructions of cities they should have been utterly destroyed by extermination. Second, by bestowing so great an offspring that they might be able to fill those seats — however most ample — [being] empty, with their own colonies and sons.
I say, seventh and last: that if they had possessed that land in the fullest and most perfect manner, or if more had migrated from Canaan into it, and had left the whole of it to one or another tribe — or if some portion had been led thither from any tribe [soever], and twelve tribes had been so raised up [reconstituted] in those places, that one entire tribe should always hold two places (one indeed the former, in Canaan; the latter, [the other,] in these new lands) — and this latter [arrangement] I would believe the more likely. First, so that the eternal inheritance given once to each tribe might stand [firm]. Second, because thus in two scattered places was, at once in the beginning, the tribe of Manasseh, and afterwards the Danite [tribe]. Third, because that manner is wont to be more agreeable to men, as even now today we see in New Spain.