First. Of the cities, some were on the plain, others on mountains and mounds. Those [on the plain] Joshua “took and burned all”; but these [on the mounds], except one, Asor [Hasor], which
(col. 1069)
taken away by fire, he preserved (v. 10) — where, for “straightway [statim],” in the Hebrew it is said “at this time,” or “during that time”; and (v. 13). Whence “best-fortified [munitissima]” is absent in the Hebrew and Greek. Others think another distribution of the cities is hinted at (v. 13). For some allowed themselves to be besieged, and their ramparts and walls to be cast down, before they surrendered; others allowed themselves indeed to be besieged, but did not wait until their ramparts were overthrown, and, while these still stood, surrendered themselves. The former [category] Joshua burned, all [of them]; these [latter], not — by the precept of Deut. 20:10. “And he smote” (v. 11) “all the souls that abode there: he left not in it any remains, but laid all waste even to utter destruction, and destroyed the city itself with fire. And all the cities round about, and their kings, he took, smote, and destroyed, as Moses the servant of the Lord had commanded him.” And (v. 19): “There was not a city that delivered itself to the children of Israel.” Certain books read here, “that did not deliver itself.” But, first, in the Hebrew it is: “There was not a city that made peace with the children of Israel.” Secondly: that exception, of Gabaon alone, which delivered itself and made peace, indicates [that] that other [word], “not,” is to be omitted; and likewise the cause which is subjoined: “For he took all by war.”
Secondly: “Joshua took” (v. 16) “all the mountainous land, and the southern, and the land of Gesen, and the plain, and the western region, and the mountain of Israel, and its champaign [lowlands]; and the part of the mountain that goes up to Seir as far as Baalgad, through the plain of Libanus, under Mount Hermon: all their kings he took, smote, [and] slew.” These [things] are all manifest from what precedes, except that [of] v. 17: “and the part of the mountain that goes up to Seir as far as Baalgad.” For because in the Hebrew it is “chalak,” Masius accuses the Latin interpreter, who said “part of the mountain [partem montis].” “[It is] indeed little rightly [rendered],” says Masius himself, “for the connection of the sacred words, as they are certainly written.” And so he himself renders [it] “from the bare [smooth] mountain [à monte glabro]” — which he holds to be on the southern side of Canaan, and, by antithesis, so called from neighboring “Seir.” For “Scheir” [Seir] signifies “hairy [shaggy],” to which “chalak” is plainly opposed — that is, “bare and smooth.” It is confirmed, because Symmachus renders [it] λεῖον [leion, “smooth”], and Rashi with Radak place this mountain toward the desert of “Sin.” But, first, since “chalak” also signifies “part,” I do not see why he accuses our Interpreter, since he does not deny that part to be toward the South and beside Sin — when he adds, as it is also in the Hebrew, this part to be that “which ascended toward the mountain called Seir,” or gradually rose toward it. Secondly: If we depart from the signification “part,” there is no reason why we should rather interpret “bare mountain” than “easy, pleasant, and least rough mountain,” since that word signifies this too — and these significations, apt also for this place, the marginal Calvinian Gallican Bibles (Geneva, year 1588) confess. Thirdly: then nowhere toward the South is any bare mountain read of, opposed to that hairy and shaggy [one]. Fourthly: The 70 rendered τὰ πρὸς τῷ ὄρει ἀπὸ ὄρους χελχά, καὶ ὁ προσβαίνων εἰς σήιρ [ta pros tō orei apo orous chelcha, kai ho prosbainōn eis sēir, “the [parts] toward the mountain, from mount Chelcha, and [that which] ascends toward Seir”] — in which words, if “καὶ” [and] were omitted, the Hebrew text would be more nearly touched. Others in Greek rendered the mountain ἀαλάκ [aalak]. The cited Calvinists: “montagne de halak.” Fifthly: The Chaldee Targum renders [it] “the divided mountain,” or “not joined, nor united.” Sixthly: Aquila, “the dividing mountain.” Seventhly: There are not lacking [those] who place “Seir” also toward the North, and [that] which gradually advances toward the South, and there, as it were, closes off that whole side of Canaan; and among these is Adrichomius. Since, therefore, our Latin interpretation interprets the Hebrew name in that manner, [so] that it can admit several expositions, and does not bind the sense of scripture to this or that exposition, it is deservedly better than that which binds [it], and sells a thing not sufficiently certain, in the very text, as [if it were] most certain — as the Masian version does, and, after it, the Tremellian and Junian.
Now “Baalgad” is, to some, a part of Antilibanus set over against the Sidonians. “But I,” says Masius, “reckon [it] to be a part indeed of Libanus, but toward the East — since Sidon is nearest to the West. For we saw the land of Maspha placed toward the East (v. 8), and [that] it was subject to Mount Hermon (v. 3). Now indeed Baalgad is described [as] neighboring to Hermon, as also [in] ch. 13, v. 5, and ch. 12, v. 7.” Benjamin [of Tudela]: “From Laodicea I came in two days,” he says, “to Gebal — the same [as] Baghalgad, under Mount Libanus; and it is nearest to that nation which they call HHASSIN [the Assassins], who do not follow the doctrine of the Israelites, but of a certain [man] whom they reckon to be a Prophet; at whose word all [of them go] either into death or into life.” But whether that place was so called because it was “the field” and “plain of Gad,” as the Chaldee Targum holds (Masius wondering [at it]); or because “Gad [was] as [it were] the Lord”; or for some other cause — I do not determine. By the 70 it is written Βααλγάδ [baalgad].