The Lord thus divided the whole people, so that that one head [person], in which the crime resided, might at last be found. And the division was of this fourfold kind. The first: of the whole people into its tribes. And it was sought from these tribes which was liable to this crime. When this was ascertained, [there] was a second division of this one tribe into families, or clans and kindreds, of which it consisted. And of these likewise it was sought which was liable to the same crime. And when this was detected, there was a third division made — of his family, into all its houses. And when it had been likewise sought and found, the fourth and last division was made — of the found house, into the individual heads. And after the inquiry, the source [culprit] was found. For this was the best, most expeditious, and most compendious method of finding him who was sought, among so many and so great thousands of men. For the distinctions and numbers of families, houses, and heads were ready to hand. And indeed the Jewish tribe [Judah] was here found guilty of the sacrilege, the family of Zerah, the house of Zabdi, the man Achan. But here there are some doubts.
The first: was the Levitical tribe [included] in that inquiry of the tribes? Answer: Because the Levites too had entered Jericho, and could sin no otherwise than the men of the other tribes, the Levitical tribe was altogether called into the question too. You will say: therefore there would have been 13 tribes? It is answered, first: in the text it is not here asserted that there were only twelve. Secondly: when it was a matter of things which were altogether common to the whole people, the Levitical [tribe] held its place among the tribes of Israel; and yet nonetheless only 12 tribes were reckoned, because those two which were propagated from Joseph — Ephraim and Manasseh — were taken as one, and were called “the Josephic” [tribe]. So in the 12 gems of the Pontiff’s Rational [breastplate], one was the Levitical; in the 12 stones of the Jordan, one [was] Levitical; and at Gilgal likewise (above, ch. 5). But when there was anything which touched only the profane [lay] tribes, the sacred Levitical tribe was indeed excluded, but the Josephic [tribe] was distributed into two [Ephraim and Manasseh]; and so the number was still of 12 tribes. See Abulensis, qq. 24, 25, 26, 27.
The second: ought the whole tribe, family, and house to come forward, or [only] the chief and masters of each? That [only] the chief came forward, Masius judges to have sufficed — namely, for each tribe its prince, who was called φύλαρχος [phylarchos, “tribe-ruler”], as was expounded in ch. 3; for each clan or family, a Prince, who [was] δήμαρχος [dēmarchos, “clan-ruler”]; for each house, an elder, and as it were the father of the whole house. This is probable. Yet that the tribes, families, [and] houses presented themselves entire is not improbable either. But when [it came] to the fourth division, it was altogether necessary that all, and each singly, present themselves.
The third: ought women and children to have presented themselves in the fourth division? Abulensis denies (q. 28), because men only entered the city of Jericho; but [it is] more likely that women and children too were comprehended in that fourth inquiry. For although, in the first assault — when the city was to be burst into, and slaughter [was] to rage upon all the Jerichoites — men only, and warriors, entered it, yet afterward every sex and age could enter, as was said (ch. 6, qq. 11, 25, 31); and therefore [could] also steal something. For women and children too [are] thievish. And it is established, from laws which are directed to the masculine gender and forbid something, that women too are included.
The fourth: In this fourfold partition of the people, how could it be found which tribe, clan, house, and head [person] was guilty of the sacrilege? This [is] worthy of its own question, as follows.