Question II. Of what did Joshua warn the same tribes?

(col. 305)

“The Lord your God,” etc. For of him [Moses] it is at once said, “which Moses handed over to you”; nor in that Num. 32, or anywhere else, is [this] found verbatim: and therefore that [word] “saying” is to be referred not to the enumeration of the words, but to the sense. And thus often in the New Testament the old [Testament] is cited — not rendered in the individual words of it, but only in the sense. Third. GOD is said [to have given] the rest, and the whole land of Gilead of which the discourse is, to these tribes, v. 13; but a little after (v. 15) the same is attributed to Moses — [that] namely GOD gave [it] as author and supreme Lord, Moses gave [it] as the administrator and servant of the same. Fourth. Masius reprehends our Interpreter because he rendered “beasts of burden” [iumenta] [the word] which in Greek [is] κτήνη [ktēnē], in Hebrew micneh [מִקְנֶה]. For by these two names are signified greater and lesser cattle; but by that Latin [word] only the greater, which namely help the labors of men — as oxen, horses, asses; whence also for iumentis he himself puts pecudes [cattle/flocks] — although both these can be restricted [i.e. either can be limited to the wider sense]. Fifth, about these wives and little ones remaining he asks from q. 63 up to 75, Abulensis: who meanwhile defended them from the enemies, sustained [them] by agriculture, [and] made them fruitful even by the use of marriage. But of these and similar [things] more opportunely below ch. 22.

But in the very exhortation there comes, first, to be noted that “and” is here rendered by “but” [autem], as also elsewhere not rarely. Second, [those] who by our Interpreter — and by the Greek Aquila — are called “armed” [armati] are in the 70 ἔξωνοι [exōnoi], as below ch. 4 v. 13; in the Hebrew חֲמֻשִׁים [chamushim]. These some expound “the fives” [quinos] — as [that] namely five by five, or five [leaders], should go before; others “armed up to the loin,” which [at] 2 [Sam.] ch. 23 [is] chomesh, and by the 70 is rendered ὀσφύα [osphya], that is, “loin.” Masius [renders] “girded with a belt, and expedited,” without arms — because neither could arms supply for those [tribes], oppressed by so long a servitude; nor, if they had cuirassed themselves with such zeal, would it have been enough [placed] in God’s garrison of hope and confidence. But I said in Exodus whence the Israelites could have had arms; and Masius himself acknowledges [it] — namely from the spoils of the submerged Egyptians, of the Moabites, and of the recently destroyed Amorites. Nor is it against divine hope and confidence if [those] about to make war carry swords, cuirasses, and armor of every kind. For human arts, works, and garrisons God’s grace does not spurn — nay rather, unless the Lord persuade something extraordinarily otherwise, it would be [a mark] of imprudence and great temerity to expect all from GOD [while] adhibiting [applying] nothing, or not so much of zeal, arms, and endeavor as right and prudent reason dictates. That old [saying]: “With Minerva moving thy hand” [i.e. do your own part too]. And if you regard God’s power, what need was there of these tribes’ escort at all — nay, what of others’ [escort] in any war, and of the order of the camp? — as, at the end of this chapter and the beginning of the following [one], the same Masius and Abulensis note, ch. 2 quest. 3.

“The endeavor loves help. For who would join [aid] to one calling [for it]? / [Who] would aid, or join virtue to the slothful?”

But of this afterwards often, and on ch. 4, [and] Judith fol. 252. About the horses, [as to] what he objects, we will see in that place where this same author says he will speak. Rightly, therefore, our [Interpreter] renders “armed” — either because they were armed up to the loins, or rather because [equipped] with arms of whatsoever kind and howsoever, as that

(col. 306 [printed 307])

time bore, as each one’s circumstance brought; or, finally, because — being prepared for the journey by that very [fact], with order [and] alacrity, [and] girded — [they were] instructed [equipped]: and thus also “armed” can be taken at Exod. ch. 12 v. 18, where [is] the same word which [is] here (about which [is] more there), and here below ch. 4 v. 12, where the 70 [have] ἐνωπλισμένοι [enōplismenoi, “armed”]. And so there would be no dissension of the interpreters, since the individual [renderers] have brought forth some apt and true signification of this word — which also entirely agrees with that [signification] which the noun chalutsim [חֲלוּצִים] has (which is put for it below v. 13), or chushbim, which in this same history Moses always uses, Num. 32 v. 17. Third. “Before your brethren” [ante fratres] they were to go. But how? [Was it] that they should always be in the first battle-line, and first in place on the roads and battles? For the Hebrew word liphne [לִפְנֵי] means not only, properly, “before” as to place and order, but also as to aspect and knowledge — so that he is said to be thus “before” who is easily in someone’s eyes, whether he be in front, or follow after, or be at the inner or outer side. And therefore it can be doubted whether they were “before” as to place, or as to knowledge and association. Masius and Calvin will [have] this latter mode, and therefore that one [Masius] says it is rather to be rendered “in the presence of the brethren” [coram fratribus]. And it can be confirmed in twofold [manner]. 1. Thus frequently in scripture that [word] liphne is taken, as Gen. [—] v. 9, 2 [Sam.] 2 v. 9; and indeed in this very narration (Num. 32), in the Hebrew five times — v. 21 twice, v. 22, 27, & 30 — although to the Latin interpreter it seemed enough to express [it] once, v. 21. Then. The order of encamping (and, from it, of going out) prescribed and preserved by Moses (Num. 2 & 10) would have to be violated. For in the second rank only proceeded the Reubenites and Gadites; in the third, the Manassites. — The former mode, however, pleases Abulensis (q. 80) and me more. Because, since a word or phrase can rightly be taken in various ways, not simply this or that signification is to be assumed at each one’s [own] judgment, but [it is] to be looked at which one may most agree to that place of which it is treated — by investigating from other passages [the meaning] in the usual ways of scripture-sense. But from those [passages] it seems entirely [that] these our [tribes] preceded the rest of the tribes. First, because below ch. 4 v. 12 the 70 render ἔμπροσθεν τῶν υἱῶν Ἰσραήλ [emprosthen tōn hyiōn Israēl, “before the sons of Israel”], which pertains more to the former reason of that [word] “before,” Masius acknowledges. Second, [because] our Interpreter — who [is] indeed very ancient and most learned — there still more clearly says [that] those same tribes “went before” [praecessisse] in the crossing of the Jordan. Third, because that the Hebrew liphne is [taken] for the anterior place there [Josh. 4], it is plain from this: that before these words is narrated just before (v. 11) how the priests went “before the people.” But that [they went] in the first rank — [that] namely the ark, with its priests, was leader to the people — is the common opinion, from which not even Masius himself abhors [dissents], when he writes in that place. — That “before the people” is ambiguous. For conveniently he so interprets it, that it may signify [that] the ark anew offered itself [as] leader of the journey, and — through [i.e. past] the people waiting at the crossed river — penetrated to the front. And hence he afterwards gathers [that] good prelates ought to be first and standard-bearers in every office and virtue. Fourth, finally, because of those [things] which were objected, the one is already expounded; but the other is easily conceded — namely [that] the order of stations and journeys [was] now changed by the Lord—

(col. 307)

—[changed by the Lord], because that [order] had been commanded only for a fixed time in the wilderness, and of change; and therefore not improbable reasons can be brought for this precession [going-before]. One be, that it was fair [that] they be placed in front who first, by divine reward, sought and obtained from Moses the enjoyment of the inheritance. The other: that it was fitting [that] they should also seek first the place of the marching-column, so that they might prove their faith and alacrity so much the more to the whole people, and to the Commander Joshua. The third: that beyond all the others they had no impediments, being now relieved of the burden of wives, children, and cattle. The fourth: because these were all firstborn — Reuben indeed from Leah (Gen. 29:32), Gad from Zilpah (Gen. 30:9), Manasseh from Aseneth the Egyptian (Gen. 41:51); and therefore that some first [places] also should sometimes be given them, in labor and honor — is it not consonant? And indeed, if ever otherwise, [is it] not now? [The fifth:] All [of them] had to cross the Jordan, and to fight for [their] brethren — all, I say, [except] those excepted (whom, besides the cattle, they themselves once had excepted, and Moses had approved, Num. 32:17 & 26); and Joshua had already now pronounced [them] excepted (here v. 14). But these were wives and sons, as above [was] expounded.

But [the things] which cast some shadow [of doubt] are two chiefly. First. Those who had attained the sixtieth year of age are wont to be freed from the necessity of soldiering — nay, if we believe Josephus bk. 3 ch. 11, among the Jews those who were passing the fiftieth [year]. Was it, therefore, for these to war further across the Jordan? Second. There were in those tribes — as is gathered from Num. 26 — [that] the heads [poll-count] of warriors [came] easily [to] 110,580. For there are handed down there, from:

— but of these [Manassites] here [only] the half is [reckoned, the Transjordan half-tribe]. [Total: 110,580.] But below, ch. 4 v. 13, only 40,000 crossed. Where, then, [are] the 70,580 remaining?

To the former responds Abulensis q. 62: [that] the sexagenarians, and those thereafter more advanced in age, remained in Gilead with the women and little ones also. But of their exception with these [women] — if you say [there was] no exception made, because it was sufficiently plain to all that they were to be excepted by law and institute — the same will seem to have to be said of the women and little ones. For that these too were exempt from war, who then could doubt? It could be esteemed [that] of old men of this kind there is therefore no word in the exception [i.e. they aren’t mentioned], because their fewness [paucity] was greatest. For since the whole peregrination from Egypt into the promised land was of 40 years (as elsewhere is proved), [and] in the second year of the Egyptian exit the other numbering of warriors was made (Num. 1:1); and again [since] all who were 20 years or more (two excepted, Caleb and Joshua) departed [this] life before entering into the promised land itself (Num. 14:13 & ch. 26:64) — [it is] plainly effected [that], besides those two, [there was] none at this time, in the Israelites’ camps, of more than 59 years. If, therefore, as Abulensis wills, the sexagenarians and those seniors had exemption from war, [there was] no need to provide for them by exception, because there were none. But if truly, as Josephus said, exemption was given from the 50th year of age, there could indeed be some [such]; but in these tribes, not so many that mention of them would need to be made expressly. Nevertheless there could indeed be some thousands of them — while some are 41, others 42, 43, 44 years [old], and what runs beyond. And what difficulty would there have been, in one word or another, to name old men together with women and boys? Therefore I would prefer [that] they be provided for in that manner which, in this very disputation, not much later, will be explained.

(col. 308 [printed 309])

To the second [difficulty there is] not one response. Masius: “the note [word] ‘all,’” he says, “of universality, signifies indeed [that] none but the military [men] ought to accompany [their] brethren on this expedition, but not [that] they all — [all] who are military — ought to accompany [them].” An admirable exposition! For he says this: “all” means “not all.” — Among Abulensis (q. 76), some say [that] absolutely all had to cross, but that of those alive [remaining] there were no more than 40,000. But not long before — in this very year of the Egyptian exit, at the last census — the people had been numbered (Num. 26); and of these tribes that great number was found, of which a little before the sum was placed [given]. And [there was] neither any warlike disaster, nor any pestilent force of disease, nor any other plague — but not even, [as] the cause of any plague, was there afterwards any graver delinquency of the people. How, therefore — without the fault of temerity — is it affirmed [that], from these tribes, in so exiguous intervals of time and place, so many thousands perished? — Others hand down [that] that whole number of the census was indeed still full [alive], but so that into question two [things] still come. One, whether Joshua appended a certain note and modification, by which — from all those thousands of these tribes summed up before — a restriction to forty thousand only should be made. The other, if he appended [it], whether rightly and without sin. Of the former [there is] a twofold opinion. For, among Abulensis q. 77, some teach [that] to the particle “ALL” [OMNES] were added these words, “strong in hand” [fortes manu], [so] that it would be understood [that] not universally to all, but only to all “strong in hand,” it was enjoined that they should cross the Jordan. Others deny [it] — as [does] the same Abulensis in that place, and Masius — who by those “strong in hand” understand all warriors, or [those] who were fit for waging war, as were all who were 20 years [old] up to 50 [or] 60 (as above, from Num. 1 and others, [was] shown). But to those former [interpreters] I accede. First, because it is one thing to be, by age, “fit for war,” another to be “strong in hand.” That [former] agrees to all who are in the army; this [latter] to fewer, and to those only [who are] more excellent and outstanding. Second. Clearly this signifies the Hebrew, in which those are called gibbore chayil [גִּבּוֹרֵי חַיִל], that is, “strong and mighty in virtue, or in strength.” For that very name — that it may have force and emphasis the greater — is formed to the likeness of the vehement Hebrew conjugation piel, and has its “strong” dages [dagesh forte]. Then to it still is added the very name “of strength and of forces.” Finally, thus in scripture this phrase is often put, [so] that it may denote not all the military [men], but those who in the strength of mind and body outstrip the rest — 1 Chron. 5:24: of the Manassites a huge number is handed down, and their princes are afterwards recounted by name, and of them is subjoined: “most strong men, and mighty, and named leaders in their families”; where the 70 [have] ἄνδρες [andres, “men”]—

(col. 309)

—ἄνδρες ἰσχυροὶ δυνάμει, ἄνδρες ὀνομαστοί [andres ischyroi dynamei, andres onomastoi, “men strong in power, men of renown”]. And similarly 1 Chron. 7:5, of certain Issacharites — when at v. 4 it had said only “girded” [accincti], “for battle” or [for] the battle-line. For this is in the Hebrew, and in the 70, ἰσχυροὶ παρὰ τάξιν [ischyroi para taxin] for “most strong” [fortissimis] — which in our text are [rendered] 2 Chron. 26:12: “The whole number of the princes by families, of strong men [virorum fortium], [was] two thousand six hundred” — although Ozias the King had otherwise a most numerous army, of whom [is spoken] there. Third, because the three [arguments] by which Abulensis strives to destroy this opinion are nothing [worth]. First: “By the sons [filii] it is not to be crossed [i.e. the sons need not cross]. But ‘you cross over.’ That is, all except the sons.” I respond: all except these, and those, whom the adjoined modification “of strength” [roboris] will have excepted. Second. Moses had commanded that all warriors should cross, Num. 32:21. Therefore also Joshua [commands the same]. It will be responded a little later, when it will be discussed whether Joshua sinned. Third. They had assented to Moses commanding that all should cross. Therefore the same is now proposed to them. It is responded: because they had assented to that [command], it could indeed be proposed to them; but Joshua moves them the more [strongly] by asking less from them. The same Abulensis also tries to show [that] this phrase [is]

(col. 310 — but this is col. 309 continued; L-column middle) — attributed to the whole tribe [as] “fit for war,” because Num. 1:3 “whoever is 20 years [old], and of the age before pre-defined, are young men [iuvenes]; they are called ‘strong men’ [viri fortes].” I respond [that] there this Latin name signifies that which afterward — v. 20, 22, 23, 25 and following — is expressed by “proceeding to war” [procedentes ad bellum], as from the Hebrew [it is] openly clear, and from the 70 themselves also, in which ὁ ἐκπορευόμενος ἐν τῇ δυνάμει [ho ekporeuomenos en tē dynamei, “he who goes forth in the army/host”] is that “who goes forth in the army” — to war, namely, and the rest of war [affairs]. Hence indeed now [it is] manifest [as to] what I was touching above: that by these words very many are excepted from the crossing of the Jordan, but chiefly those who are older by birth [natu grandiores], weak, and less vigorous in the strength of body. And by the same words could be excepted also all of weaker sex and age, unless Joshua had willed first expressly to except those whom he had once excepted (these tribes so petitioning), [namely by] Moses; and thus [would he] join to these still others more.

But whether rightly, and without sin, he did it — that further is the other [altera] question which was posited. For since Num. 32:21 so signally Moses says, “Let every armed warrior-man cross the Jordan,” suspicion perhaps might fall upon someone (as Abulensis notes q. 75) [that] our Joshua departed from Moses’s precept. But how would he depart — who now already, from

(col. 309 continued; L-column foot) that [precept], at v. 7 [Josh. 1:7] had been warned not to deflect the least to right or left — nay, who, in this very his own exhortation, admonishes these very tribes (by Moses’s own authority, and with an encomium interposed) so gravely of [their] duty? Rightly, therefore, in the same place and q. 78, Abulensis [holds that] nothing here was sinned by Joshua; but that [is] less rightly [said] which he says: [namely] that Joshua was always of this mind — that whoever could bear arms should set out into Canaan with the other tribes — but that, when he had known the summit of all their alacrity and study of obeying from their answer, he changed his mind, and established [it] settled enough if 40,000 came into the fellowship of war. For of his own accord [sponte], by the decree of his own mind, before they answered anything, he had ordered [only] the “strong in hand” [fortes manu] to come, but had made for the rest the power [option] of remaining. This [is] plain, first, from those [things] which about these “strong [men]” were dis-

(col. 310 [printed 371])

—cussed [disputata]. Second, from the reason of Joshua: [namely,] either Joshua provided [for the case that] it be not conducive that the newly-subdued province should lack all warriors, or [he did] not [so provide]. If he provided [for it], how would he have commanded that all should go from it into Canaan? If he did not provide [for it], was he not too dull and stupid? Who [is] so demented — or [an] Imperator [commander] so little provident — who would not advert [notice] that the remnants of a subdued people could again come together, could solicit neighboring peoples, or [that] these, by some accord of their own, or even by the fear of the same danger, could seize arms, rush into a region bared of defenders, invade the unwarlike crowd of women and boys, and atrociously and with impunity give the whole to iron and flame for slaughter [internecio]? Therefore most wise Joshua provided this very thing; and [so] was unwilling to expose his own [men], and their affairs, and [their] dearest pledges [children], to so present a danger — but [willed] that in Gilead [Galaaditis] all should be safe, defended, and fortified. 70,000 he left there; and, that they might yet help the other tribes with manly effort [pro virili], he excerpted [selected out] 40,000 — that is, the flower of all. He understood, namely, [that] this was Moses’s mind [intention]: who [Moses], with a most prudent mind also, foresaw the same dangers which I have said —

—especially since to these tribes those [dangers] had been signified, Num. 32:17. And [Moses] had indeed ordered [that] all [universos], with arms, should go into Canaan; but only that he might explore their mind, and see whether they sought so much [only] their own, [caring] nothing or little about [their] brethren’s advantages. But where he perceived all [to be] ready and voluntary, [it is credible that] Joshua afterward privately signified [that] he would leave a garrison in the already-occupied Amorite [land], but would lead with him, beyond the Jordan, as many and whom [as] seemed [good]. But it was [a matter] of divine custody [protection] to be trusted — just as when, thrice in a year, all the men convened at Jerusalem, Exod. 34. Thus indeed [would it be], if, just as there, so in this matter, he had promised the defense. But with him promising nothing, there would have been a certain audacity and temerity: to leave the dominion — a little before subdued — empty of all men, and to fortify [it] with no garrisons, cities, and villages against the enemies’ incursions. Third, either Joshua also understood [that] not all the forces of these tribes [were] necessary for the imminent war, or he did not understand [it]. If he understood [it], why would he have fatigued so great a multitude in vain? If he did not understand [it], how did he suffer any to reside at home? — But these [things are] enough: with which will consent those [things] which below, ch. 22 v. 8, will be handed over, and by Abulensis in the same place, q. 5.

Fifthly and lastly [Quinto & ultimo], in the same exhortation [there is] to be noted that particle of v. 15, “against the sun’s rising” [contra Solis ortum] — that is, “toward the sun’s rising” [versus Solis ortum]. But it [Ea] is used elsewhere too, as [at] Num. 32:19; and that [is] because “across the Jordan” [trans Iordanem] is said in a twofold manner. For this manner of speaking falls here upon either bank and side of that same river. But the one [is] toward the West, the other toward the East. Because, since [it] is led [governed] by the Hebrew preposition “from crossing” [transeundo], [it is] certain [that] from either side into the other [one] crosses.