On the same day on which the river was crossed, and on which the camp was placed in the plain of Jericho, these stones too were set in place. For the text indicates this not obscurely (v. 20), when [it links], to the very laying-out of the camp, the setting-up of the stones—
(col. 481 — left column; printed “488”)
—[the text] straightway subjoins [it], and diligently notes, in the following chapter, those [things] which were not done on the same day, but only on the following days — such as the circumcision, the Passover, the ceasing of the manna, and the like. Nay, even the Rabbis themselves — although, by various windings, they carry these stones first to the mountains Ebal and Gerizim — nevertheless carry them back to this same place of the camp, and set [them] up in it. And to what end would Joshua, so tireless and diligent in all other things, in this one [alone] grow sluggish and weave delays? If in the very midst of the Jordan twelve other stones could be set up so suddenly, why not these too, [set up] in the remaining hours of the day and evening? Nor will he be deceived in [his] judgment who reckons [that] — to signify this — that night is so pointedly set down in these words (v. 3): “Which [stones] you shall place in the place of the camp, where you shall have fixed [your] tents this night.” The Rabbis, moreover, say [that] they were first placed on the said mountains, then straightway torn up, and — on the same day, as I was just now relating — placed in the camp, as the Seder Olam relates (ch. 11). But that [opinion] has already been exploded above; this [one], however, is true. For on the same [day] (v. 3) the Lord had thus commanded: “You shall place them in the place of the Camp.” And [here] (v. 20): “the stones Joshua placed in Gilgal.”
But in which part of the camp? “I find twelve” — says Tertullian (bk. 4 Against Marcion ch. 13) — “stones chosen by Jesus [Joshua] out of the Jordan, and stored up in the ark of the testament.” But so many and so great stones, which strong and robust men had to carry not with [their] hands but on [their] shoulders — how would the not-large ark, and [that] now [filled] with more things (namely, with the urn of manna [Deut.], and perhaps [that] which is disputed on Exodus and Heb. 9) — have held [them], [being already] filled up with other [things]? Why should stones — to which [there is] no danger from heat, nor from cold, nor from any other weather and injury of the air — be stored up in an ark? And indeed the word “PLACED” [posuit], v. 20, in the Hebrew and Greek, imports a position far other than [such] that those [stones] should lie in a chest, as will be said a little after. Yet, lest anyone suspect a corruption in Tertullian, that most learned expounder of him, Pamelius (num. 161), confirms that reading from the following words, where he also asserts this opinion [to be] peculiar to him [Tertullian]; which, however, in our age, Lorichius Hadamarius embraces upon that chapter. But Rabbi Levi son of Gershon — who, for brevity’s sake, is called by the Jews Ralbag — in [his] Commentary on this place, will have [it] that [they] were deposited “beside the ark.” But whether within the sanctuary itself, or without, he does not indeed expressly state; but insinuates [that they] were outside.
(col. 481, lower; printed “488”)
And this also seems [right] to me. For since [they] were placed in an illustrious spot — both for renewing the memory of so great a miracle, and for stirring up some feeling of piety toward God (as will be more explained in the following question) — what other place [was] more fitting than beside the tabernacle and under the open sky? [So] that they might strike the eyes of all coming to prayers, or to the ark, as [it were] at first glance, might drench their souls with a sacred religious [awe], [and] rouse [them] to the praises of the divine goodness? But in the same Ralbag [there] is a certain other thing which I cannot but disapprove. For he says [that] those [stones] were perpetually kept beside the ark, so that, when — by the custom of which I spoke [at] Tobit 1 — the Israelites came to it thrice a year, they might see them, and religiously call to mind the past miracle. But, first — since [the ark], if transferred elsewhere—
(col. 482 — right column; printed “489”)
—to the ark’s [station], whether Shiloh or Jerusalem, these rocks too would have had to be transferred at the same time. But from what [source] is [it] gathered, by even the least indication, that [they] were ever transferred? What trace of them [is there] ever, either in the Shilonite or in the Jerusalemite station of the ark? Was not the memory of this long-lasting work more fittingly preserved, if — not far from the Jordan, in the very first [camp] which the Israelites pitched in that land — [the stones] remained in the camp? Are not other stones too — which for other causes were set up elsewhere — always left in their [own] places? Nay, [it] is handed down [that] they stuck fast in that very place of the camp [even] many ages afterward — because Jerome, concerning St. Paula, writes thus in her epitaph: “She gazed upon the camp of Gilgal, and the heap of foreskins, and the mystery of the second circumcision, and the twelve stones which, brought thither from the channel of the Jordan, had made firm the twelve foundations of the [twelve] Apostles.” But whether that holy [woman] gazed upon all these [things] with the eyes of the body, or of the mind, can scarcely be affirmed. For now of those [bodily things], now of these [spiritual], St. Jerome speaks in the description of that pilgrimage. Yet [that] he speaks [here] of a bodily sight, he may not ineptly believe who has weighed [that], when [Jerome] speaks of the spiritual, [there] is generally something added by him whereby this very thing may be observed — as when he says: “Prostrate before the cross, she adored, as if she beheld the Lord hanging [upon it]. She swore [that] she saw, with the eyes of faith, the infant wrapped in swaddling-clothes.” In this camp-dwelling, therefore, near the tabernacle, these rocks were set up; and, that [tabernacle] being afterward removed, they none the less remained there. But why none were set up at the Red Sea — the cause seems [to be] either that the Israelites were not going thereafter to dwell in those places, or that on the bottom of the sea the Lord had impressed other signs, as I adduced in [my commentary on] Exodus.
Josephus, moreover, in the cited place, says [that] out of these stones an altar was built by Joshua; and Moncaeus (bk. 2 On the Calf ch. 4) yields to his opinion. But the context does not assert this — but only [that] he set up or placed the stones. For the Hebrew verb, since [it] is in hiphil [הִפְעִיל, the causative stem], means “to make stand,” or “to set up.” And in the Greek [it] is said ἔστησεν [estēsen, “he made [them] stand / set [them] up”], which is set down also for those stones (v. 9) which were fixed in the midst of the Jordan. But out of those [river-stones] no altar was raised. And therefore these all seem [to have been] fixed and set up each one separately — not compacted and joined into the construction of one “ark” [heap]. So [it was] done also [in] Exod. 24 v. 4 [the twelve pillars]; and thus a more distinct memory of all the tribes of the Israelites, and a deeper propriety of the words, is preserved — even in that wonder of posterity (v. 7 & 21): “What mean these stones?” But nowhere, “What means this ark?” or “What means this joining-together of stones?” And [it] would be a marvel, if these stones had served for an altar, and yet no mention of this were ever made in Scripture. Therefore Abulensis (quaestions 29 & 30) rightly convicts Josephus. For that man oftentimes committed to writing — against or beyond the Scripture — not what was done, but what he thought could probably have been done, and would be more pleasing to the Gentiles themselves.
But whether the same stones were altogether rough, or polished; and again, whether inscribed with the names of the tribes or with other marks, or not; and whether — [with] other stones set under [them] — they stood forth [and] were placed on top, in the likeness of little columns or of pyramids — I shall say—
(col. 483 — left column; printed “490”)
—whatever seems [good] to anyone. For [there] is nothing of those [things] which could not have been done. But when he had joined them, says the cited Seder [Olam], with lime [mortar], they inscribed the law above [on top] in seven languages. To whom, I ask, [did they do this], and for what reason?