At this very morning-time of the tenth day — which hitherto he had indicated only in general words — the Lord openly disclosed to Joshua himself the whole manner of the crossing of the Jordan. For although this be not so expressly related, we can nevertheless gather [it] from all [the things] which are thereafter handed down. For what the priests must do, the Lord now prescribes; a little after, what the people [must do], what the twelve men, and the like. To the priests, therefore — not all, but only those who were to carry the ark — this precept is given: “When you shall have entered part of the Jordan, stand in it.” And perhaps [it] was written by the interpreter “stand in it [masc.],” because the Jordan is found in Hebrew in this manner: “When you come to the part of the waters of the Jordan, you shall stand in the Jordan.” Yet there is no variety in the meaning, whether we say [that] they stand in a part of the Jordan, or in the Jordan itself. But the question is: which [was] that part of the Jordan, in which they had to take their stand? There are three opinions. The first, of Masius himself: [that] it was the far part of the Jordan, on the other bank of the Jordan, toward the promised land. The second is [that] of Lyranus and Abulensis (quest. 18): [that] the priests stood in the middle of the Jordan. The third — of certain Hebrews [reported] in Lyranus — places them on the nearer bank, where the camp already was. In the Joshuan booklet (num. 45) I followed the middle [opinion], and still follow [it]. But [it] is to be explained a little, and better proved. For the text indicates a twofold stationing of the priests in the Jordan: one at its edge, the other in the middle. The former, in this very verse 8 and 15, is signified by the Hebrew noun קָצֶה [qatseh, “edge, end”]. For in scripture everywhere our [Interpreter] and the Greek interpreters render that [word] “the edges” and “the ends” of some thing; here they render [it] “part of the water,” and understand “the outermost part.” But because “the outermost” can be said both of that [part] which is on the farther bank, and of that which [is] on this nearer one, Masius will [have it that it is] that [farther one]; we [take] this [nearer one], and we prove [it] from the text not obscurely — because at verse 15 it is said [that] the Jordan was divided, when the feet of the priests had been dipped in its edge with the waters. But before they touched the other bank, the Jordan was divided. Otherwise, [it] would have been necessary [for them] either to advance through the midst of the waves, or, by some other miracle, to fly over them. Then he [Masius] brings here no reason for this his opinion; but from [the things] which he had before taught (folio 57) I seem able to gather only this: The ark had to precede the people by the space of two thousand cubits; and such is wont to be the breadth of the flooding Jordan. And therefore, unless they had fixed [their] step on the farther bank of it, that prescribed interval would not have been kept — nay, he later (folio 64) clearly sets out this reason. But although in general this had been so prescribed, [it] is now nevertheless modified, so that in the Jordan [it] be not so done, but after its crossing. And this Masius too has to confess. For he says [that] the ark stood on the farther bank so long, until the whole people had crossed; and therefore it did not then precede [them], but stood near those crossing. But against this same [opinion make the things] which—
(col. 410)
—will now be said about the middle of the Jordan. For in that very [text] there is another stationing, which is most clearly shown [in] ch. 3 v. 17, [and] ch. 4 vv. 3, 5, 8, 9, 10, 18 — where in Hebrew it is always תָּוֶךְ [tavek, “midst”], and in the Septuagint τὸ μέσον [to meson, “the middle”], in our [Latin] “the middle.” And [it] is wonderful [that] Masius was so tenacious of a presumed opinion that he would render [it] anything rather than in this way. For he renders it [as] only “the channel” (ch. 4 v. 3), “into [it]” (v. 5), “the Jordan” (vv. 8 & 18), “within” (v. 9), “inside” (v. 10) — not even once “the middle,” although that be the first and most usual notion of the Hebrew noun, and [there be] nothing which draws us away from it; whereas the interpretation of the Greeks and Latins, the consensus of the Fathers, and a certain very apt reason lead [us] to it. For if the priests had remained not in the middle of the channel, but only at the edge of one or the other bank, they would have seemed to the more ignorant people to have chosen a safe place for themselves, [in case] perhaps the Jordan should not long hold back its course, but, after its manner, fill the channel again. But those from the people who meanwhile advanced through the middle would always have reckoned themselves in great danger, lest they be overwhelmed by the masses of the down-flowing waters. But now, when they see the priests, and the ark of the Lord, remaining firmly and constantly in the very middle of the channel, why would they not bear greater courage, and [be] fuller of faith and confidence? And therefore Sulpitius said [that] they had their station not on the opposite bank, but in the opposite [midst of the] river — as if they gazed at a wall of standing waters, and forbade it, lest it now move itself. Rightly, therefore, the second and third opinions are joined together: that at the beginning, indeed, the ark-bearers stood in the part of the waters which first received them; then, when the waters had ceased [receded], they advanced into the middle of the channel, and there clung, with unmoved position. But in that outermost part [they stood] no longer than while the Jordan divided itself, and gave a dry road to those crossing. And [it] is likely [that] this was done in a very short time, as will be said a little later (v. 13). But in the middle of the channel their station was longer — namely, until the whole people had crossed (ch. 4 v. 10). And therefore the discourse is chiefly about that one station, when [it] is asked how the priests stood; and about that alone I was answering formerly, in the cited place. Here, however, with Cajetan, [it] has pleased [me] to answer more distinctly. Yet Masius well notes [that] the 70 seem here to have read not atha [אַתָּה, “you”], as [it] is read in the Hebrew — that is, “you” — but hatha [עַתָּה, “now”], that is, “now.” For they render that v. 8 καὶ νῦν ἔντειλαι [kai nyn enteilai, “and now command”] — “And now command.” Our [Interpreter]: “But do you command.”