In Joshua’s address to the people, two [things] still remained to be expounded. One is about the twelve men to be chosen tribe by tribe (v. 12); the other clearly explains the manner of crossing the Jordan (v. 13). In the former, the question is: whether those 12 men are the same [as] those about whom [it speaks at] the beginning of the following chapter? First: [that] they are not the same, one [author] — as far as I could gather by reading — hands down: Cajetan. Second: others, in a body, all — as Lyranus, Abulensis, Masius, [and] also the Rabbis — teach [that they] are the same. But then a new question arises for them: how [is it that] here these are ordered to be chosen, and again at the beginning of the following chapter? Was Joshua not already obeyed by the people? No one would say [that], on that day — when [there] was so great an expectation of so many and so great portents—
(col. 414)
—when [there] was so great an expiation and sanctification of the whole people, when, by so many and so great exhortations, love toward the Leader had been kindled in the minds of all, [and] observance toward the Leader, and an ardour of obeying was fervent — [that] in a matter so easy and ready there was any disobedience. Others, therefore, understand a recapitulation [as] made in the following chapter — as Lyranus; others, an anticipation in this third [chapter] — as Abulensis (quest. 1 of the following chapter). But others say these same [men] are the [ones] chosen [there]. First indeed, for this — that they might be ready to do what Joshua would wish to command them, and observe his nod, whenever [it] pleased [him] to use their service; then indeed, after the Jordan [was] now crossed, [that] Joshua called the same [men], and enjoined what he then wished to be done by them. So Masius. But which of all seems likest the truth will be established at the beginning of the same following chapter. Cajetan, however, thinks these — who are different from those — [were] chosen for this purpose now: that, in the name of the 12 tribes, they should accompany the ark going before. But — for the sake of what thing, I ask, [was] that accompanying? For the sake of defence, if perhaps any of the enemies should rush in? or rather for the sake of honour? Not of defence — because for that [reason] the Lord wished the ark, with the priests carrying it, to go before the people alone, so that he might show [that] he himself was present to them, protected them, [and that] with him [as] Leader there was nowhere any danger, nothing to fear. Nor was honour regarded [either] — because [in that case] the Lord would have wished [that] the Levites rather (who were holier than the rest of the people, and more devoted to the divine worship) should be present to those priestly bearers, than individuals from the other tribes. Then, how did they accompany the ark? Did they go before, or follow, or close its sides, or partly this, partly that? They could not go before, because [then] it would have been necessary [for them] to enter the Jordan, and to be thoroughly wetted — almost ridiculously. For, unless the priests set foot in the waters, those [waters] did not depart. They could not follow either — because, if defence were sought, they would have had to be in the front; if honour, even then [it] would rather have been fitting [for them] to go before, both because of the custom of that age and nation, and because of at least some show of defence. Why they should be at the sides, I see no cause either — nor why [they should be] at these [positions], both before and after. But these companions the law which was passed above (v. 4 & 5) utterly exterminates: “Beware lest you approach it.” No one then is excepted, nor in this text (v. 12) is any exception now hinted. How, then, did he [Cajetan] so easily invent those companions? Let these 12, therefore, and those, be the same. About the manner of the crossing something too would have to be said; but [it] will be more opportune when the crossing itself is treated a little later. But between our [Latin] and the Hebrew or Greek text these [things] are to be noted. 1. Where our [Interpreter] says “prepare,” in the Hebrew it is “And now take for yourselves”; in the Greek similarly, καὶ νῦν προχειρίσασθε ὑμῖν [kai nyn procheirisasthe hymin, “and now choose for yourselves”]. 2. Where our [Interpreter] has “And when they have set the soles of [their] feet,” the Hebrew has “And it shall be, when the soles of the feet shall have rested”; the Greek, καὶ ἔσται ὡς ἂν καταπαύσωσιν οἱ πόδες τῶν ἱερέων [kai estai hōs an katapausōsin hoi podes tōn hiereōn, “and it shall be, when the feet of the priests rest”]. 3. Where our [Interpreter] reads “the waters which are below shall run down,” the Hebrew and Greek seem to make no mention of the lower waters; but the [Hebrew] indeed [reads] thus: “the waters of the Jordan shall be cut off [discindentur]” — or “cut away [exscindentur]” (for both notions belong to the Hebrew verb, as will be touched below) — “descending from the upper part, and shall stand as if” — (for this particle of likeness, as often elsewhere,—
(col. 415 — above the divider)
—[for this particle of likeness, as often elsewhere,] is not badly supplied) — “one heap.” But the Greek [reads]: τὸ ὕδωρ τοῦ Ἰορδάνου ἐκλείψει· τὸ δὲ ὕδωρ καταβαῖνον ἄνωθεν στήσεται εἷς σωρός [to hydōr tou Iordanou ekleipsei; to de hydōr katabainon anōthen stēsetai heis sōros, “the water of the Jordan shall fail; but the water descending from above shall stand as one heap”]. That is: “The water of the Jordan shall fail. But the water descending from the upper place shall stand [as] one heap.” Yet altogether those lower waters [are present], not by word, but in fact, in both those texts, though a little more obscurely; and in the Greek indeed [it] is said: “the water of the Jordan shall fail.” For, properly, the upper water did not fail, but stood [still] in one heap; and therefore, when [the text] is about to speak of this upper [water], it adds the adversative particle δέ, that is, “but.” But in the Hebrew, when [it] is said: “And the [waters of the] Jordan shall be cut off [discindentur], or cut away [exscindentur]” — for if we should wish the Hebrew verb here to signify “cutting-off [discission],” the sense will be [that] the lower waters are to be cut off from the upper; and, when [it] is added [that] the upper [waters] shall stand, [it] is given, of the lower [waters]—
(col. 416 — above the divider)
—[of the lower waters, it is given] to be understood [that] they do not stand still, but run further down. But if we should wish the same verb to signify “cutting-away [exscission]” — since the upper [waters] were not cut away, or lifted out of their channel — [it] is plain [that] this is to be understood of the lower [waters]. And [that] this notion of the verb is more proper to this place, the 70 teach, when they render it by ἐκλείπειν [ekleipein, “to fail”], and [so does] the Chaldee Paraphrast. But the conjunctive particle “and,” before “they shall stand,” Rabbi Isaiah says [is] superfluous; others — with whom I agree — [say it] joins those upper standing waters with the others [that are] cut away, or failing, so that [the phrase] “they shall stand” would indeed more clearly be placed before “the descending [waters]” — either alone, or with the verb to which [it] is now annexed (as below, v. 16). Yet in the place where it is, it does not now change the sense already expounded.