[It] will be reckoned [to be] taken geometrically, if [even] one cubit indeed, or a foot, or a grain, or anything at all be wanting to, or exceed, the fixed number of two thousand. But ethically [morally], if some tiny [amount] be wanting or overflow — provided [that], to the eye, and with some good reason, two thousand appear [to be there]. This latter mode is urged: First, [by] the difficulty of observing that geometrical measurement accurately. For either all the intervals of the ways would have to be measured and marked most accurately, and always one and the same [would] the pace have to be, both of those going before and of those following; or ropes [would have] to be stretched from the ark, [as] fixed [measures], to the following multitude, and [there would have to be], almost before the feet of all, a certain line, or pole, which — drawn by those carrying the ark — would be the index for advancing a step, and, for those perhaps hastening too much and putting the foot too near, a check and a barrier restraining them. But who would believe [that] so laborious an advance, so tedious a diligence [applied] to the readiness of everyone’s feet, was exacted by GOD? Secondly. In human actions, the numbers of times, journeys, and similar things are wont to be taken not by the accurate reckoning of Mathematicians, but by a certain moral prudence and custom. For example: when [it] is said “on the eighth day the boy is to be circumcised,” [it] is not necessary [that] from the hour at which he is born the 24 hours begin to be numbered by which one day is completed, and so another 24, seven times, until [we come] to (namely) the 200th hour, at which the eighth day is closed, or the 177th [hour] at which [it] begins. When [it] is said “on the 10th [day] of the first month the lamb is to be taken, and on the 14th the Passover to be celebrated,” [it] is not necessary [that] these be worked out by a plainly Mathematical calculation, but morally — as still today [it] is done in our Easter [Pasch], and [that it] ought so to be done our Clavius proves against the Lutheran Maestlin. Thirdly. In the Hebrew and Chaldee the Lord bids [that] two thousand cubits be numbered, not precisely, but he prefixes a little word [vocula] by which is signified “about,” or “as it were two thousand cubits.” And therefore Masius: “It is probable,” he says, “that that space could be prescribed not so definitely — [seeing] that [it] was to be measured only by the conjecture of the eyes, not by cubits.” Fourthly. The Israelites would have been too anxious on the road, and too much occupied in so accurate an observation of all the cubits, feet, and digits [finger-breadths].
But toward the former [geometrical view] there seem to push: 1. The Latin text, which simply, without any diminishing particle, says: “let there be between you and the ark a space of two thousand cubits.” 2. Granted that that particle be added which is in the Hebrew — “about,” or “as if” — [yet] it is agreed [that] it does not always di[minish the thing or number to which it is added]—
(col. 399)
—[it does not always] diminish or weaken [the thing], but rather sometimes signifies its very accurate truth. And therefore the Hebrews call it Caph amithith [כ״ף אֱמֶת, “the Kaph of truth” — the particle k- taken as marking exactness, not approximation], that is, “the Kaph signifying truth.” 3. In the Hebrew is added “in measure” [in mensura] — which Junius and Tremellius interpret [to mean] that those cubits had to be of the common measure, and received among all. But Vatablus expounds [them as] royal and sacred cubits. But where, and how, do those words signify this? Be it so — let there be some cubits common, others sacred, or royal. Why, when “in measure” is said, should I take those [sacred/royal ones] rather than these [common]? Does not the notion of measure suit all [cubits]? And is it not agreed [that], when [the matter] concerns the dimensions of common chests, or of lands — but not of sacred buildings — common cubits are always employed, as the same [authors] confess on Num. ch. 35? “In measure,” therefore, here means “measuredly,” “according to measure,” or “by applying a measure” — just as, if I should say in Hebrew “to do something in wisdom,” it will mean “wisely,” or “with wisdom applied.” And [it] is confirmed: because our [Interpreter] and the Greek text omitted these words, “in measure,” for this reason — that, the particle “as if” or “as it were” being now simply removed (which could seem ambiguous), they said [that] two thousand cubits [are] to be numbered here. Otherwise these words would have been passed over by them with little correctness. But now in them [our texts] the meaning is the same as in the Hebrew. 4. If this distance were only moral, there would have been no need to express the number of cubits, but only [to say] “let the interval between you and the ark be long.”
Weighing these [things], therefore, in my mind, I reckon indeed [that] here both measurements are to be taken — so that it is, namely, geometrico-moral [Geometrica moralis]: that is, let it be moral indeed, but with such care and study of measuring applied as could, at that time and place, be done by them — so that it either was altogether Geometrical, or came as near [to it] as possible. Or [it] is indeed Geometrical, but so [taken] that, if some little [amount] be wanting or overflow, that be reckoned as nothing. As if, for example, the priests were to halt a little, or to proceed somewhat more slowly, [and] the rearward [ones] meanwhile unknowingly stepped forward three or four paces. And thus also circumcision, Passover, and the like had to be effected by a fixed number — [but] a moral-Mathematical [one]. The highest human diligence in sacred matters is pleasing to God; and therefore Rome once examined even the tiniest scruples of religion with scrupulous care, as Valerius Maximus witnesses (ch. 1 num. 8). But measuring-ropes [funes] were in use for the longer spaces (Ezek. 40, and in Psalm 77 [78] & 104) — as will be said below in the distribution of the land, quest. 12, on ch. 14.