(col. 346)
That the spies came into the city with the sun now setting [Occidente iam sole], Abulensis says quest. 17. But neither does the length of the journey necessarily require this, nor [does] the word v. 1, “they rested [quievuerunt],” [signify anything] about [a time] a little after; and it repugns [contradicts] Josephus bk. 5 ch. 1. And therefore [it] is enough, if we esteem [that] they came after midday, one or another hour, before the sun set. But [that] they lodged overnight [Pernoctasse] Cajetan affirms entirely — so that in the evening they entered Rahab[‘s house], rested there the whole night, on the following day went about the city and explored [it], and returned to the house; and thus, on that following day, [they] were seen, and were indicated to the Jericho[ite] King. His reason [is] first, because v. 1 [it] is expressly said, “they rested with her,” or, as in the Hebrew, “they slept there [dormierunt ibi].” Second. By the same Hebrew verb it is said, v. 8, “Not yet had they fallen asleep who were hiding” — and a little after, they were let down through the walls. And therefore [it is] to be confessed [that] here [the] discourse is about the other [second] night. Otherwise the text would fight with itself, saying “they slept, and they did not sleep.” Nevertheless, I judge [it] more likely [that] they did not lodge overnight. 1. because v. 2 [the ministers] had said to the King: “Behold, men have entered by night, of the sons of Israel, to explore the land.” For in Hebrew [it] is written, “they entered this night [hac nocte].” But that, either on the first day of [their] advent (as I esteem), or on the second (as Cajetan esteems), they said. If [it] is held [that they entered] on the first [day, this fits]; if on the second, they ought rather to have said “they entered yesterday [heri],” not “this night.” But, you will say, on the day before they had not noticed [them]. How, then, on the following day did they notice [them]? and how did they not notice before night? Secondly. Of informers [Corycaei], and of all magistrates, the custom is that they be swift and quick, by which they may gather the reputation of diligence, and strenuously satisfy their office. But these [the King’s men] would have been slow, and almost late, if they had procrastinated their report into the following-day’s night. But [it] appears [that] they themselves wished to be seen before the King [as] quite swift and sharp-eyed, while they say: “Behold, this night.” Thirdly, because — Josephus ch. 1 bk. 5, and [this being] the more received [opinion] of the Hebrews and Latins — this [is] the opinion, as above part 1 q. 5 [was] expounded. Fourthly, the two objected reasons diminish that [opinion] in nothing. For the Hebrew verb שָׁכַב [shakab] signifies various [things]: namely “to sleep,” “to give work to Venus [lie with],” “to die,” and — without sleep, Venus, and death — simply “to lie down, to lie,” or “to rest, and to tarry.” For this too the verb לין [lin, “to lodge overnight”] signifies. But this last signification [is] to be taken in v. 1, whereas the first [is] proved in v. 8. First, from our Interpreter, who therefore renders that one and the same Hebrew [word] by two Latin [words], so that of that one—
(col. 347)
—[of that one Hebrew word] he might show two significations here: namely, “of resting” or “of tarrying,” and “of falling asleep.” 2. The same [thing] also [those] whom our [Interpreter] imitated had done before — the 70. For in the first place they rendered κατέλυσαν ἐκεῖ [katelysan ekei, “they lodged there”], as [was] said quest. 5; but in the latter [place], κοιμωμένων αὐτοῖς [koimōmenōn autois, “while they were sleeping”]. And thus the difficulty is dissolved in both ways, and especially the latter, which Cajetan urges more. For [there] is no repugnance, if we say [that] in Rahab’s house they rested and tarried, yet took no sleep. Nor is [it] homonymy [equivocation], but the customary polysemy of the same Hebrew verb. But [that] the other significations do not pertain here [is] patent — of “death,” since [they] alive and safe returned into the camp; of “coitus” [it] is proved 1. from this, that when this verb has that signification, [it] is wont to be conjoined with the particle “with [cum],” and with some name of a woman, or [with] another [word], but not to be put alone, as Gen. 19:34 & 35, ch. 26:10, ch. 39:12, Num. 5:13 & 19, Exod. 22:18, Deut. 22:22, Levit. 15:24, 1 Kings [1 Sam.] 2:22, 2 Kings [2 Sam.] 11:11, etc.; 2. from [what was] said quest. 3. Although, if in v. 1 we took [it as] “sleep,” [it] could still be said [that they] did not sleep, but wished to sleep; or [that] Rahab entered the house with this intent, that they should sleep there and lodge overnight, but afterward, v. 8, it was not permitted. For preterite Hebrew verbs often signify not [that] which someone did, but [that] which he wished to do — just as also that [word] of the B[lessed] Virgin, Luke 1:34, “I do not know a man,” that is, I have willed, established, and decreed not to know. If someone would prefer to assent to Cajetan, [he] could set up the reckoning put above pag. 1 quaest. 5 thus: “On the second day of the month Nisan they entered Jericho, and there lodged overnight; on the following day, at nocturnal time, they went out thence, and hid themselves in the mountains that night — and thus [that] was the first day of hiding; and on the fifth day of the month, which [was] the third of hiding, they returned to Joshua.”