This latter preparation is narrated, in this place, [by] the heralds, Joshua, [and] God. The heralds say two [things]: first, when [there is] to be departure (v. 3); then, how [there is] to be going (v. 3 & 4). Joshua, indeed, proposes various [things], but in two [modes]. For he either addresses the whole people, or the priests alone — and the people indeed twice, namely v. 5 and 9 to 13. But God [addresses] only Joshua, v. 7 & 8. Before, however, [we] treat of the several [items], two [things] about all [of them] are to be inquired generally: namely, when, and whether all these are done in the same order in which they are written.
Cajetan will [have] the proclamation of v. 2 & 3 made on the day after the arrival at the Jordan, on the tenth day of the first month; but the announcement of the sanctification (v. 5) made on the 9th, that is, on the very day of arrival. The same is gathered from Masius (though he is more obscure), when he teaches [that] v. 5 pertains not to this tenth day of the month Nisan (to which, namely, the rest pertain). St. Augustine (quaest. 3) seems not so much to judge, as to give others occasion of judging, [that] that announcement of the heralds was made in Shittim. For when it was [necessary] to come thence to the Jordan, what leader of the journey did the Israelites have? Not the cloud, as of old — for that vanished when Moses died. They followed the ark, therefore. But nowhere is it commanded [that] they do this, except here (v. 3 & 4); and who would believe [that] they did [it] spontaneously — since the Lord (Num. ch. 10) had bidden it [the ark] to be in the middle of the tribes, both when setting out and when standing? Hence now [it] seems to be effected — [which] was inquired in the second place — [that], according to this conjecture from St. Augustine, all [things] are described in the same order in which [they were] done: first, namely, [those] which [happened] in Shittim (v. 2, 3, 4); then, [those] which [happened] at the Jordan, the day before the crossing (v. 5); thirdly, [those] which [happened] on the very day of crossing (v. 7 and following). But according to Cajetan and Masius, these are not done in the same order in which they are described — but so that among them there is still disagreement. For Cajetan reckons only v. 5 placed out of its [proper] place; but Masius, nearly all. His words are:
“The order of the narration, in my judgment certainly, is quite disturbed in this place. For it is very like the truth [that] the [things] which are narrated from v. 7 to 14 were all done before those edicts which the third and fourth verses contain were promulgated. I say [it is] credible [that] Joshua was first made more certain by GOD about the manner of getting the river across — that which is explained [in] v. 7 & 8; then, indeed, that he disclosed to the people the manner of crossing which he had received from GOD — as verses 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13 seem to record; and only then was [it] proclaimed to the people [that], as soon as they saw the ark carried before them, they should follow — as the third and fourth verse have [it]. And presently [that] the priests were bidden, the ark taken up, to go before the people, which the sixth verse narrates. And thereafter [that] there succeeds that narration which is begun at v. 14. Thus, therefore, [in his opinion] the text is to be arranged [in the order]: immediately after the first verse—”
(col. 394)
[Masius’s proposed narrative order of the verses, shown as a brace in the printed text:]
The [reordered] verses are: 5 · 7 · 8 · 9 · [10 · 11 · 12 · 13 · 2] · 3 · 4 · 6 · 14.
I, about these two little questions, establish these two [points]. The one: [that] all [the things] which are here narrated from v. 2 befell after the departure from Shittim, [when] the three-day [period] of the former preparation had already elapsed. For in the Hebrew it is (as [was] expounded [in] quest. 2): “from the end of three days, and the heralds passed.” In the Latin too it is: “When these (namely, three days) had elapsed, the heralds passed.” In the 70: μετὰ τρεῖς ἡμέρας διῆλθον οἱ γραμματεῖς [meta treis hēmeras diēlthon hoi grammateis, “after three days the scribes passed through”]. Then, since at v. 5 it is said “tomorrow the Lord will do wonders among you,” and [there] is no particle in the text whence these [words] could be conjectured to have been said on another day than the preceding [ones], all [the things] from the beginning of the chapter, up to v. 7, are to be conjectured [to belong] to the day before the crossing. Thence [that] all [things] belong to the second [day] of arrival — that is, the tenth of the first month — the particle at v. 7, “Today,” is a witness. Only [it is] here to be observed [that] those three days are said [to be] “elapsed” because their end was now [at hand], although a small portion remained, in which — after two or three of the midday hours — these [things] were pronounced; and therefore [it] would be permissible to render that Hebrew, “toward the end of the three days.”
The other [point] which I establish is [that] the order of the events here was the same as [the order] of the narration. First, because, when no reason presses, nothing is to be diverted from the text — especially in a historical narration. Secondly, because all [things] cohere excellently. For about the manner of advancing, which thenceforth from this bank into the land of promise (and in it) was to be observed, first the people were instructed (v. 3 & 4), then the priests (v. 6).
But about the manner in which they came to this bank, I feel thus. First, [that] from that text it cannot be proved [that] the cloud had then already ceased. Secondly, [that] it nevertheless seems more likely [that] it had ceased — so that in Joshua’s rule there was no longer any cloud, none to lead the people; the darkness [ceasing], on account of the greater signification of the things which were figured. Thirdly, [that] in this journey to the bank there was no leader other than some of the Israelites. For since the camp had stuck so long at Shittim, who would doubt [that] very many ran out as far as the Jordan (since the interval was very small), and thus had the whole way most thoroughly scouted? But you will object: if nothing at all be departed from the order of the text, [it is] necessary that, before the tenth day of the month, and after this approach to the bank, some journey was made, in which this new manner of advancing was employed — because [at] v. 6 the priests are said to have fulfilled the commands, gone before the people, and carried the ark of God before [them]. I answer [that] here is narrated [what] was done thenceforth in its [proper] time and place. For because it was not to be narrated afterward, therefore (although [for] another rea-[son]—
(col. 395)
—[for another reason] it may bring [reason: quest. 12, Abulensis] — here [it] is opportunely and briefly narrated, [that] this order of advance was diligently complied with. Otherwise this could have been narrated [at] v. 14, [or] ch. 4 v. 18 or 19. Nor yet is there any disturbance of order, if, while the command is reported, [it] is briefly added [that] it was afterward observed. The rest, moreover, which were done on the 10th day, begin from v. 7; and they prescribe certain new modifications — not about the whole [advance] which was to be in the promised land, but about that alone which was to be in the channel of the Jordan — about which [more] afterward. For it follows [that] we now treat of the several [items].