In this chapter are related the [things] which happened before the wars — chiefly five: namely, the fear of the enemies; the circumcision of the Israelites; the celebration of the Passover and of the Unleavened [bread]; the ceasing of the manna; and the apparition made to Joshua himself. Now in that first [matter], these [things] are to be observed. First: that that enemy-fear is set forth for this reason, that we may understand in what manner the [things] which are thereafter narrated in this chapter could be carried out — especially the circumcision. For if (Gen. 34 v. 25) two men, Simeon and Levi, could cut down with the sword the whole city of the Shechemites while it lay oppressed with the pains of circumcision, what could so many and so great kings of the Amorites and Canaanites not [have done] against the circumcised Israelites? Second: that that fear was sent utterly from God, so that we may consider his continual care and providence over his own. Third: that — whereas all the enemies are wont [elsewhere] to be set down under seven names, or ten — here [they are set] under two, being contained under [the names] of Amorites and Canaanites. Fourth: that the Amorites are here indicated — all indeed settling toward the banks of the Jordan, but some toward the Eastern bank, others toward the Western. And those indeed [are] more usually and more precisely called Amorites, whose king Sihon had been destroyed by the Israelites while Moses [was] still alive; but these [western ones] are sometimes included under the name of the Canaanites. But their description here is [such] that they are “beyond,” or rather “beside,” the Jordan; and, that they may be distinguished from those others, [there] is added in the Hebrew, “toward the sea” — the Mediterranean, namely — as was expounded above (ch. 1, part 1, quaest. 7). And therefore the Translator [Vulgate] expressed the thing most clearly, saying “toward the Western region.” But the Seventy omitted it [the phrase], because — since [the matter] concerns those peoples toward whom the Israelites were now advancing — when they were called “Amorites beyond the Jordan,” [the Seventy] thought [it] sufficiently understood [that] they were Amorites not Eastern (from whose region [the Israelites] were now departing), but Western (into whose land they were now entering). And under this one name of “Amorites” all the inhabitants of this land seem also to be comprehended (Amos 2 v. 9 & 10). Fifth: the Canaanites are said to possess the places near the great sea. In Hebrew [it is] “upon the sea”; or, as the Seventy translate, τὰ παρὰ τὴν θάλασσαν [ta para tēn thalassan, “the [places] beside the sea”] — that is, “at” or “beside” the sea; which, for the sake of greater clarity, our Translator expressed [as] “great,” for the reason expounded in that same quaest. 7. Sixth: these [Canaanites] are here translated by the Seventy φοίνικες [phoinikes, “Phoenicians”] — so that this name extends much more widely than [it] is sometimes taken among writers, [so] that [it] embraces not only that [region] which among these is called Phoenice, but also Judea, Galilee, and Palestine. Whence those who are everywhere called “Phoenicians” — even in Homer, in the Odyssey (bk. ξ [14]) — are the same [as the] Canaanites; and Cadmus [is] a Phoenician, Dido a Phoenician [woman], the Phoenician letters — that is, they are “Canaanite” (masc.), “Canaanite” (fem.), “Canaanite” (pl.). And, conversely, she who by St. Matthew is called “Canaanite” [Chananaea], the same by St. Mark (ch. 7) is called “Syrophoenician”; and by Dionysius, and likewise Pausanias, Gaza — which is otherwise [in] Palestine — is placed in Phoenicia, as Stephanus notes. But whence the Phoenicians were [so] named, [there] is various opinion, as is wont to happen in these obsolete matters. Some derive their origin from a certain son — I know not whom — of Agenor, [son] of Neptune and Libya, of whom Stephanus [speaks]; others from the Red Sea, in Strabo (bk. 1); others from the ruddy color with which the fruits of the palms are endowed — for as [Phoenicia] abounds in them, so they [the people] are of one color with them, as Eustathius says [commenting] on the Iliad, where he also calls them “Erythraeans” [Red-men] for the same cause. But in the ancient Writer [cited] in Eusebius — in Sanchoniathon — the cause is read [to be] that χνᾶν or χνᾶς [chnan/chnas] — that is, Chanaan or Chnaan — μετωνομάσθη φοίνιξ [metōnomasthē phoinix, “was renamed Phoenix”]. And concerning their nearness to the sea, which is said here and in Num. 13 v. 30, the same [is] thus expressed by Dionysius: οἳ δ᾽ ἁλὸς ἐγγὺς … φοίνικα [“and those near the sea … Phoenicia,” the line is garbled in the scan]. But of their kings [it] will be said below, in other places. Seventh: the fear of these [nations] is thus depicted in the text: “Their heart was dissolved, and there remained no spirit in them, fearing the entry of the sons of Israel.” In the last of which words [it] is to be noted [that] that [word] “fearing” [timentium, genitive] refers to the earlier [word], namely “their heart”; otherwise [it] would have had to be said “fearing” [timentibus, dative — agreeing with “them”]. But in the Greek and in the Hebrew [it] is said only more briefly — on account of what, and whence, that liquefaction or dissolution of the heart, and failure of spirit, arose: namely, “from before the sons of Israel.” Eighth: what is here signified by the name of “heart” and “spirit,” the Seventy teach, when they translate the [former] τὰς διανοίας [tas dianoias, “the minds, thoughts”], the [latter] τὴν φρόνησιν [tēn phronēsin, “prudence”] — that is, [that they lost] mind and prudence, and all thoughts or reasonings and counsels; or [that] every [means] of acting well and prudently at such a time and peril [was] divinely taken from them. And this fear is wont to be the greatest — unnerving, and bringing on a kind of madness and stupor. Now Seneca warns his Lucilius (epistle 13) not to torment and torture himself too much with a fear of that kind (which he calls “frantic” [lymphaticum]) — of evils which, whether they will ever be, is uncertain. “Look,” he says, “whether [there] are certain proofs of a coming evil. For the most part we labor under suspicions, and that [rumor] which is wont to decide a war mocks us — fame [rumor]; but much more does it undo individuals. So it is, my Lucilius: we quickly come round to opinion; we do not refute the [things] which lead us into fear, nor shake [them] off, but tremble, and so turn [our] backs — just as those whom a dust stirred by the flight of a herd drove out of [their] camp, or whom some tale spread without an author terrified. I know not how the vain [things] disturb [us] more. For true [things] have their [own] measure; whatever comes from the uncertain is given over to the conjecture and licence of a fearful mind. And so no fears are so pernicious, so irrevocable, as frantic ones; for the rest [fears] are without reason, [but] these [are] without mind [sense].” But if [the matter] concern death, judgment, [and] the punishments of hell — which will certainly and quickly come upon those doing evil — is it not deservedly to be greatly feared? Yet those doing well, and fearing God, may deservedly hope and trust that the Lord will either unnerve and restrain the enemies of our souls too by fear (as was done here), or grant a glorious victory against them (as we shall see in what follows). See the first question of this part, in the preceding chapter.
The second part of the chapter proposes three [things] concerning the circumcision. First: how [it was] commanded by God, and undertaken by the people. Second: what [was] the cause. Third: what, as regards it, was done afterward. But the questions demand all [these things].
(col. 497 — left column; printed “504”)