There are two opinions. The prior — of St. Augustine (quaest. 2), of Lyranus, of Abulensis (quaest. 2), and nearly common — [is that] they stopped there three days; and this our text seems to assert, when it says: “They came to the Jordan — they and the sons of Israel — and they tarried there three days.” Here, however, [there is] among the authors one reckoning and another of these three days. For to St. Augustine these three days are altogether different from those three in which the preparation of provisions was made above, ch. 1. But to others they are the same — [namely] that on the first day of that three-day [period] the Israelites came to the Jordan, and stuck [remained] there on that day and the two following: and this is the opinion of Josephus, bk. … ch. …, if it be well noted. The latter opinion is [that] of Cajetan, Masius, Ralbag, and nearly the other Rabbins: [that] only one day and night was stayed here; and [that] that day was the very one on which they had arrived here, and which was the third of the previously-appointed preparation — the ninth, indeed, of the first month.
It is proved: first, from the Hebrew, which word for word has thus: “They came to the Jordan — they and all the sons of Israel — and they passed the night there, before they crossed. And it came to pass, from the end of three days, that the heralds went through the middle of the camp.” Here you see [it] expressly signified [that] they passed the night there only once before they crossed the Jordan. For if you should say, of some travellers, “They had set out from Bingen, [and] came to Mainz, and there passed the night, before they crossed the Rhine and went to Frankfurt,” you would have signified [that] they tarried at Mainz for one night only. Nor does it matter, if someone says [that] the Hebrew verb (as the 70 [do]) renders “they lodged [κατέλυσαν, katelysan]” [as] “they tarried.” For the reasoning is equal, [and] although from that signification of the verb—
(col. 392)
—that argument may fall which Cajetan draws from “sleep [lodging].” Nor does it stand in the way, that there is added, “from the end of three days.” For these three days are not [days] of tarrying on this bank of the Jordan, but of preparation — about which [in] ch. 1 [Josh 1, part 1] quest. 2. The Latin text, even if not so distinctly, discloses all these [things], [and] can conveniently bear the same sense. For because, in ch. 1, mention had been made of the three days, and now, at the beginning of this chapter, of two places — namely Shittim and the Jordan — it subjoins: “and they tarried there three days.” “There,” I say — at Shittim and on the bank of the Jordan they tarried still for three days, [namely] those about which [in] ch. 1; whence too follows: “When these had elapsed” — in each place, that is — and after the promulgation of those days made [in] ch. 1. And because what followed [concerned] the crossing, therefore, as [being] clear to all, the same text omitted this: “before they crossed.”
3. If the three-day [period] of this chapter were other than that about which [in] ch. 1, Joshua would have falsely said there, v. 11: “After the third day you shall cross the Jordan.” For they would have crossed only after the 6th or 7th day — so that not even that ampler manner of speaking could fit, by which St. Augustine (tract. 27 on John) explains [that] Pope Sixtus said to St. Lawrence: “Do not grieve: you shall follow me after three days.” Nor can it be said [that] those who cross after the 7th day cross also after the third. For the speech would be fallacious and ridiculous. For in prefixings of times of this kind, times are wont to be taken precisely — as if I should say, “come at [such an] hour”: I do not mean [that] I came two or three days before. “After [such an] hour I will make an end of teaching”: I shall be hissed, if I understand [it] after two or three [hours]. But then Joshua either knew [that] the Israelites would not cross after the three-day [period] precisely taken, or he did not know [it]. If the former, he would have been a liar and a deceiver of the whole people. If the latter, he would have erred, and himself been quite deceived. And this indeed St. Augustine concedes, quaest. 2. But — as Lyranus rightly objects, ch. 1 — this would have been too much adverse to Joshua’s own name and fame, at the very beginning of his rule; too much alien, also, from the goodness of God and [his] purpose, that [one] whom he wished [to be] commended to the Israelites, re-established in the place and honour of Moses, [and] amplified in glory and authority, should at once slip disgracefully, be deceived, and err — and that solemnly, as it were, through the whole camp of the Israelites, through which the heralds promulgated the crossing “after three days,” ch. 1.
The holy Father [Augustine] objects [that] Moses nonetheless erred by divine disposition, when alone he was carrying the affairs of the whole people, Exod. 18. But the case is far otherwise. There was no falsity, no error properly so-called; but there was only the other [course], which [his] father-in-law persuaded him [to take] — [a] gentler and better [one]. Nor [was there] thence a disgrace to Moses; but rather [it] was the greatest praise and glory, that he tried to labour so greatly for the people’s advantage, even beyond his own strength. But here all [is] otherwise. It is to be concluded, therefore, [that] the Israelites came to the Jordan on the ninth day of the first month — which day was the first of that three-day [period], the last of [the days] appointed [in] ch. 1; and [that] in all the remainder of that day, and in all that night which followed that day, [they stayed] there—
(col. 393)
—[they] stopped there. And from this, [the things] which above (quest. 1, and ch. 1 part 2 quest. 4, and ch. 2 part 1 quest. 5) were being inquired, grow clearer.