The Gabaonites thought to bring the Israelites to this: that it might be permitted them to live through [the Israelites] themselves, and, if possible, to retain their cities, fortunes, and liberty [as] their own. But because they saw that this could not be obtained by open means — since [the Israelites] had resolved to bring utter destruction upon all the Canaanites, and had in very deed already brought [it] upon [the people of] Jericho and Ai — they turned to frauds and guiles: namely, to send legates who would feign that they came from a far country, and who, out of admiration of the valor and works which their God had done for them and through them, would ask for peace and a covenant. For they reckoned that for those who dwelt outside the borders of Canaan there was no peril [to Israel], and that to them peace and a covenant might easily be granted. But because in the Hebrew, in the Greek, and in some Latin [copies] there is also the particle at v. 4 — thus: “they also acted in cunning,” or “and they craftily devised” — Rashi asks: to what is that “also” [etiam] referred? He answers, [it is] referred to the ancient fraud of the sons of Jacob against the Shechemites — Gentile [kin] of the Gabaonites (Gen. 34). But Radak [refers it] either to the walls of the men of Jericho and the forces of the men of Ai — so that, just as [Israel] had used these against [the enemy], so [the Gabaonites now used] cunning; or to the fraud of the Israelites against [Jericho and Ai], by which they had conquered them, so that by that same [fraud they might] now conquer and deceive the conquerors themselves. But it must be said briefly. First: that that Hebrew particle is redundant [pleonastic]. Secondly: that it is referred to the counsels of the other Canaanites — [so] that, just as those pursued open counsels toward war and fury, so these [Gabaonites pursued] hidden and crafty [counsels] toward peace. But the whole of their guile and cunning consisted in this: that they might persuade the Israelites that they were far from them, that they were not included within the borders of Canaan, [and] that they dwelt in some more remote region. And for this they used feigned and simulated double signs — of which some were placed in things [deeds], others in words. The “things” [deeds] were threefold.
The first, the provisions [viaticum]. For they feigned that it was now old and stale from the long time of a long journey. For this is what v. 4 signifies — in the Hebrew, in the hithpael from “tsud” [to provision oneself], as the Chaldee [Targum] explains, and the Latin when it renders “they took provisions for themselves”; and the 70, in which [it is] ἐπεσιτίσαντο [epesitisanto, “they provisioned themselves”]; and it is confirmed, because at v. 11 is “tsedah” [provision], ἐπισιτισμὸς [episitismos], and at v. 12 “hitstatiadnu.” Yet in today’s Hebrew Bibles it is read at v. 4 “they undertook an embassy” or “they feigned [one],” from another word, “tsir,” which signifies “a legate.” This error or variant arises from the similarity of the Hebrew letters daleth [ד] and resh [ר]. But this provision is reckoned [as] double: bread and wine. Those [loaves] (v. 5) were hard and broken into fragments — hard indeed, [as] if at the very beginning of the journey they had been fresh and warm
(col. 961)
[fresh and warm], as the Gabaonites also affirm (v. 12), and had meanwhile dried up, as the Hebrew word “iabesch” [yabesh, “dried”] says (v. 5); and therefore were hard, and dissolved and comminuted into fragments and crumbs (v. 12). For just as moderate moisture gives softness to bread, and is a certain [thing] like rennet [coagulum], by which the whole coheres to itself, so excessive dryness brings hardness, and a dissolution of all the parts — which, however, long shaking [agitation] too could effect. Yet this latter [point], concerning the loaves broken into fragments, others explain in two further ways. In one, that the loaves were scorched, and thoroughly parched by the great heat of the sun. So the Chaldee Paraphrast [Targum], Aquila, Symmachus, and Rashi, deriving the Hebrew “necudim” from “iacad” [yaqad], which is “to burn”; and so our Interpreter [the Vulgate] seems to have rendered [it in] 3 Kings [1 Kings] 14, v. 3, “crustulam” [a little cake]. In the other, that the loaves were mouldy, and affected with spots of various color, as [it were] with points [specks]. For “necudoth” and “necadim” are “points [specks].” So Pagninus, Vatablus, Cajetan, Masius, Abulensis — and perhaps the 70, when they call [them] βεβρωμένοις [bebrōmenois, “gnawed, corroded”]. But Radak approves all the expositions; yet Ralbag prefers our Latin [rendering].
Secondly. The other “thing” [deed] are the vessels — namely, the sacks, in which the loaves and the other [things] necessary for the journey were enclosed; and the wine-skins, in which was the wine. All were laid waste and torn (vv. 4 and 13), and variously mended and bound up again (v. 4).
Thirdly. The garments and shoes, which [were] old, worn, and sewn up with patches [pittacia] (v. 5). A “pittacium,” in Celsus (bk. 3, ch. 10), is a little cloth which, smeared with ointment or some other medicament, is wont to be bound to the forehead or to some limb; and it is generally taken for little fragments — as here, for the various little pieces of leather with which the shoes were, as it were, spotted [patched]. And by these things, as I said, they wished [their] journey [to be] signified [as] a long one, and their land [as] very far distant from Canaan. But the former things [the provisions] they had placed upon [their] asses, as the Latin, Hebrew, and Chaldee text has (v. 4) — not, however, upon their own shoulders, as the 70 say (or rather, their faulty codices, which have ἐπὶ τῶν ὤμων [epi tōn ōmōn, “upon the shoulders”] for ἐπὶ τῶν ὄνων [epi tōn onōn, “upon the asses”]). Nor can that former reading be proved either from St. Chrysostom (on Ps. 14) or from Josephus, so as to be [supported] by the Annotations of the 70. For [Josephus] is entirely silent [on it]; [Chrysostom] says only βαστάσαντας [bastasantas, “having taken up, carrying”], but adds neither ὄνοις [onois, “on asses”] nor ὤμοις [ōmois, “on shoulders”]. And whatever [the truth] be concerning these authors, “asses” rather than “shoulders” [is] here to be read, as St. Augustine taught long ago (q. 12). Thou seest, moreover, here the ancient simplicity which travelers employed in carrying their food, as I have expounded (Tob. 6, q. 3). “But afterward,” says St. Chrysostom (hom. 2, on the words of Isaiah, near the end), “inns and taverns were everywhere devised along the roads, that the beasts together with the travelers might be refreshed from labor and trouble” — concerning which also Oecumenius and Theophylact (on Acts, ch. 28), [and] Rhodiginus (bk. 8, ch. 30). Yet today in Greece there are no public inns, but among private [persons] lodging [must] be sought by favor or by money, as the most illustrious Duke of Olyka says (Epistle 4).