Some depart from the order of the text, and will [that], before Rahab let the spies down from the wall, that whole dialogue which these and those hold among themselves, from v. 9 to 21, had been spoken. For [1.] how could Rahab have let them down before they gave her the requested sign? But [at] v. 15 the context narrates [them] already let down, and afterward, [at] v. 18, [narrates] that a sign was first given there. 2. How [could] the spies have enumerated all the cautions at once, before they bound themselves by any oath, or at least before they let [them] down? 3. And how could it come about that outside the city, at the walls, both Rahab and the spies themselves spoke so many [things], v. 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21? For surely a clear enough voice had to be used, since she was at her house in the higher part of the city walls, [while] they were now in the lower part, outside. And were there none on the walls to hear — watchmen, patrols, neighbours? A historical inversion [enallage] of the narration in these verses, therefore, is posited by Abulensis, Cajetan, [and] Masius. I, with Radak, follow the thread of the context itself, and judge [it] straight [in order]. For when they spoke those [things] which are [at] v. 18, it appears [they] had already been let down, because there — in Hebrew and Greek as well as in Latin — they say, by a past [tense], “you let us down.”
(col. 372)
Abulensis (after quaest. 54) responds [that] this is to be referred to the time — not that in which the spies speak (because they had not yet been let down), but that in which they had afterward come to the city with the whole army of the Israelites. But in a historical narration [it is] absurd to say [that] something was done which in truth has not yet been done, and yet be reckoned true (because at some later time it will be true) [and therefore] to have been done. Nor does the former covenant, Leviticus 26, help him; nor indeed had it already been given in past time, Exod. 19. Otherwise, then, Cajetan: [that] of the two spies one had already been let down, but the other was still above, [though] now on the point of being let down — and [that] this one spoke those [things] in his own and his comrade’s name. But not even thus would he have spoken truly. For [he] would have had to say either “you let my comrade down,” or, in the present [tense], “you [are] letting us down” — which by a Hebrew participle he would have said מורידתנו את [môrîdatênu ʾet, approx. “letting us down”]. For, as to the same Cajetan’s saying [that] the mean participates in the extremes, it does not thence follow [that] we can rightly use a past [tense] for a present or future. More briefly and conveniently, Masius: [that] a transposition of tenses [enallage] is most usual among the Hebrews, and so [that] “you let down” is put for “you will have let down,” or for “you are preparing to let down.” [This] would not displease, if the propriety of the words in a historical narration were not to be perpetually retained — especially in the description of times — unless some other good reason explain [it] otherwise. But now no reason of that kind appears. For [the objections] which have been raised urge nothing.
To the first. She [Rahab] was hastening greatly, and, an oath being received from them, she understood well enough [that it] was going to be [the case] that good and religious men would be solicitous about keeping it, and therefore would either of their own accord give some sign of the house to be found, or of their own accord form [one] for themselves. To the second. They too were hastening, and now this, now that caution occurred [to them]; or now one [man] said the one, now another [said] the other; and they swore, indeed, in general, but prudently — with conditions, that is, appended, which they would presently state. To the third. All these [things] could likewise be feared even in the letting-down itself, however secret and silent. For [as to] those who might see her — were there no sentinels, patrols, [or] neighbours on the walls? It was assuredly of divine providence that no one was present, saw, overheard [them]; and they used, as far as they could, a lowered voice and a very gentle whisper. And therefore, if anything were to be departed from the plain context, I should prefer to say [that] a double narration of the same letting-down is here set up: one, which is closed [at] v. 15; the other, which narrates the discourses and circumstances a little more [fully], and begins at v. 16 and is ended [at] v. 21 — where, word for word, in the Hebrew it is: “And he [she] let them down [dimisit] (not ‘demisit’) and they departed, and she tied the scarlet cord in the window” — namely, [the cord] by which she would let them down, but not [the one] by which she had [already] let [them] down. For therefore, in the same Hebrew, is added [at] v. 22: “And they departed and came into the mountains.” And then that [word], “you let down,” would be taken with respect to the prior narration already made — so that they indeed said “you [are] letting us down”; but because it had already been narrated [that] she let [them] down, let it be said, “you let [us] down.” But [it] is better, as I said, [that] a single narration—
(col. 373)
—[it is better that] we reckon [there to be] a single narration; and to this opinion Masius [is] at times sufficiently inclined, fol. 48, there [at] “but neither that,” fol. 49 [at] “but if,” and fol. 51 [at] “he thinks therefore,” and “for nothing,” etc.